Foundation of Misery : The Nehruvian Era, Part-II
Poverty-Perpetuating Socialism,
‘Secularism’ & All That
by
Rajnikant Puranik
Categories: Non-fiction, History
Copyright © 2020 Rajnikant Puranik
Available at Amazon and Pothi.com
For all books by the Author, their details, and from where to procure them,
please check
www.rkpbooks.com
To the fond memory of my late parents
Shrimati Shakuntala and
Shri Laxminarayan Puranik
- - -
Thanks to
Devbala, Shrikant Bhaisaab, Akhil Chandra, Manasi, Manini
for encouragement and help.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed or transmitted in any
form or by any means, whether electronic/digital or print or mechanical/physical, or stored in an
information storage or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of the copyright owner,
that is, the author, except as permitted by law. However, extracts up to a total of 1,000 words may be
quoted without seeking any permission, but with due acknowledgement of the source. For
permission, please write to rkpuranik@gmail.com .
Preface
It has been said that the road to hell is often paved with best intentions,
and despite the probable best intentions, ‘The Nehruvian Era, 1947–64’
unfortunately laid the firm foundations of India’s misery. The same are
detailed in this two-part book.
This is the second part of the two-part book on the Nehruvian era
(1947–64). Part-I covered the Kashmir botch-up; erasure of Tibet as a
nation; the Himalayan blunder of the India-China war; prevention of
Pakistan-II by integration of the Hyderabad Princely State into India by
Sardar Patel, despite Nehru’s muddle-headedness; and the failed foreign
and external security policies of Nehru. This part covers the rest, followed
by evaluation of the Nehruvian era.
For a fair and objective evaluation of the Nehruvian era, the book adopts
a set of rules, the “dos” and the “don’ts”:
Rule-1 (Dos). When evaluating a national leader, evaluate his or her
contribution to the nation on a set of vital parameters, for example, GDP,
Per-Capita Income, Relationship with Neighbours, Internal Security
Position, External Security Position, Literacy Level, and so on. Determine
those set of parameters at the start of the tenure of that leader, and also at
the end of his or her tenure. Check the difference.
Rule-2 (Dos). The above, by itself, is not sufficient. Some progress
would anyway be made with the passage of time. The point is whether the
progress was as much as it could or should have been. For this, also
determine a set of developing, but fast-growing countries against whom you
would like to benchmark your performance. Evaluate the progress of those
countries for the same period. Compare.
Rule-3 (Don’ts). Do not mix the personal with the professional or the
political. There is little point offsetting poor political performance against
good personal traits, and vice versa.
Rule-4 (Don’ts). Greatness has nothing to do with popularity—media
can be managed, popularity can be purchased, general public can be
manipulated and led up the garden path. Nor has greatness anything to do
with ruling for a long time. The point is, what you did for the people and
the country. If you did little, you actually wasted the precious time of the
people and the country.
Rule-5 (Don’ts). Don’t go by generalised descriptions or attributes that
don’t measure the real comparative position on the ground. For example,
statements like, “He was a great democrat, thoroughly secular, highly
honest, scientific-minded person who loved children and gave his all to the
nation,” don’t help the purpose of evaluation.
Rule-6 (Don’ts). Don’t go by what the person wrote or spoke or claimed.
A person may talk big on lofty ideals and make grand claims, but the real
test is what concrete difference he made to the nation and to the lives of
people.
Unless a leader scores high as per rules 1 and 2, he or she cannot be
adjudged as great. This is quite logical. You do not evaluate Sachin
Tendulkar's cricket on his personal goodness, you evaluate it on his
performance on the field, on runs scored—not in isolation or as an absolute,
but in comparison with others. You evaluate Ratan Tata or Mukesh Ambani
or Narayan Murthy by evaluating the performance of the companies they
are heading. If the companies are doing well, you give credit to them. But,
rare is a case where a company does badly or goes into bankruptcy, and you
still evaluate the person heading it as good and competent. Strangely, this
common sense approach goes for a toss when you try to evaluate a political
leader.
This book looks into the concrete aspects of India after independence
during the Nehruvian era to evaluate Nehru and the Nehruvian era. The
book does not trouble itself with the personal side of Nehru like how he
looked or his sartorial style or with other irrelevant issues.
— Rajnikant Puranik
A Note on Citations & Bibliography
Citations are given as super-scripts in the text, such as {Azad/128}.
Citation Syntax & Examples
{Source-Abbreviation/Page-Number}
e.g. {Azad/128} = Azad, Page 128
{Source-Abbreviation/Volume-Number/Page-Number}
e.g. {CWMG/V-58/221} = CWMG, Volume-58, Page 221
{Source-Abbreviation} … for URLs (articles on the web), and for digital
books (including Kindle-Books), that are searchable, where location or
page-number may not be given.
e.g. {VPM2}, {URL15}
{Source-Abbreviation/Location-Number}… for Kindle Books
e.g. {VPM2}, {VPM2/L-2901}
Example from Bibliography Table at the end of this Book
Azad B Maulana Abul Kalam Azad—India Wins Freedom.
Orient Longman. New Delhi. 2004
CWMG D,
W
Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi. Vol. 1 to 98.
http://gandhiserve.org/e/cwmg/cwmg.htm
URL15 U Article ‘Nehru vs Patel: Ideological Rift, Hardly a
Trivial One. Rakesh Sinha, Sunday Express. 10-Nov-
2013.
www.pressreader.com/india/sunday-
express8291/20131110/282033324959792
VPM2 K,
D
V.P. Menon—The Transfer of Power in India. Orient
Longman. Chennai. (1957) 1997.
books.google.co.in/books?id=FY5gI7SGU20C
The second column above gives the nature of the source: B=paper Book,
D=Digital Book/eBook other than Kindle, K=Kindle eBook, U=URL of
Document/Article on Web, W=Website, Y=YouTube.
Table of Contents
{ 1 } Nehru’s Poverty-Perpetuating Socialism
{ 2 } Debilitating Babudom & Corruption
{ 3 } Harvesting Misery, thanks to Nehruvianism
{ 4 } Internal Policies
{ 5 } Nehru’s “Secularism”
{ 6 } Mental & Cultural Slavery
{ 7 } Inexplicable Ways
{ 8 } Nehru’s Unjust Anointment as PM
{ 9 } Dictatorial, Feudal & ‘Dynacratic’
{ 10 } Fault Lines
{ 11 } Summarising the “Invention”
Bibliography
Detailed Table of Contents
Preface
A Note on Citations & Bibliography
Table of Contents
Detailed Table of Contents
{ 1 } Nehru’s Poverty-Perpetuating Socialism
Poverty & Prosperity: The Various Aspects
Do climate, geography, race, ... matter?
India a first-world country by 1980?
“Unless people change... can’t progress!” Argument
Spurious Reasons for India’s Failure
Unless “people with character”, can’t take off!
What is required is “the spirit of sacrifice”!
“Scientific” Socialism a Contradiction in Terms!
Why things not worked out before independence?
Socialism benefits only the vested interests.
Why socialism remains popular?
Predominance of Leftist Claptrap
Democracy and Socialism: Are they compatible?
What to follow? Socialism, Capitalism, Gandhiism...
Capitalism evolved organically, Others are Artificial
Constructs.
Nehruvian Socialistic Suicide
Why Persist with the Failed Model?
What They Said of Nehru & Socialism
Nehruvian (and NOT ‘Hindu’) Rate of Growth
Nehru + Socialists vs. Sardar Patel & Others
{ 2 } Debilitating Babudom & Corruption
The Curse of Babudom
Corruption in the “Good” Old Days
Nepotism in the “Good” Old Days
{ 3 } Harvesting Misery, thanks to Nehruvianism
{ 4 } Internal Policies
Mismanagement & Neglect of the Northeast
Northeast thanks to Bordoloi
Migration Politics
Too Many States!
Gross Mismanagement
Reorganisation of States
Safety of Minorities, Dalits & Vulnerable Sections
{ 5 } Nehru’s “Secularism”
What is Secularism?
Religious Appeasement
Illustrative Cases of Nehru’s Appeasement
Ignorance & Arrogance
Ignoring Illegal Proselytization
{ 6 } Mental & Cultural Slavery
Nehru : “the last Englishman to rule India”
Monuments to Slavishness
Brown Inferiorists
Motilal-Tribe vs. Rao-Tribe
Lordly Ways
That Strange Indian Animal: VIP and VVIP
Distortions of Indian History
Glimpses of Distortions of History
The Language Issue
{ 7 } Inexplicable Ways
Netaji Subhas Mystery
Nehru & Netaji’s Stolen War Chest
Belated Bharat Ratnas
Ill-Treatment of Others
Dalits & the Greatest Indian After Gandhi
The Fair Ladies
Sardars Daughter
{ 8 } Nehru’s Unjust Anointment as PM
{ 9 } Dictatorial, Feudal & ‘Dynacratic’
Undemocratic, Dictatorial & Feudal Tendencies
Restricting Freedom of Expression (FoE)
Dynasty First
Not Limiting the Term of the PM
Not Appointing a Successor
Taken Shame Out of Dynacracy
Ensuring Self-Publicity & Dynastic Recall
Election Funding & Vote-Bank Politics
{ 10 } Fault Lines
Leadership Weaknesses
Administrative Weaknesses
Arrogant, Conceited & Full of Hubris
‘Intellectualism’, Academics, Speeches & Writings
{ 11 } Summarising the “Invention”
Evaluating a Leader : The Right Approach
Evaluating Nehru
Posers : Alternate Evaluation
Squandered Once-in-a-lifetime Opportunity
Leadership & Administrative Weaknesses
Dreamer & an Idealist?
Innovative Counterfactuals
“Greatness” by Definition
Didn’t have it in him…
Required: deNehrufication and deDynastification!
Bibliography
{ 1 }
Nehru’s Poverty-Perpetuating Socialism
POVERTY & PROSPERITY: THE VARIOUS ASPECTS
Poor countries are poor because those who have power
make choices that create poverty.
—Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson
DO CLIMATE, GEOGRAPHY, RACE, ... MATTER?
Are one or more of these the factors that make a country poor or
prosperous: climate, geography, location, abundance of natural resources,
race, history, “type of people”, “character of people”?
No. None of these.
Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson in their book ‘Why Nations Fail :
The Origins of Power, Prosperity and Poverty’ demonstrate, inter alia, that
climate, geography, location, history, race, “type” of people are NOT the
reasons a country is rich or poor.
They take examples of neighbouring countries with identical climate,
geography, location, history, race and “type” of people, where one-side is
poor and the other prosperous: Mexico and the states of the US bordering it
like Texas; North Korea and South Korea; Haiti and the Dominican
Republic in the Caribbean region. One can add to these comparisons the
Mainland China till the early eighties versus Taiwan; and Malaysia versus
Singapore.
The determining factor, the authors say, are the institutions: human-
made systems, rules and regulations, and how they are implemented on the
ground. ‘Extractive Institutions’ cause poverty and misery, while Inclusive
Institutions’ lead to prosperity and freedom.
What are extractive institutions? Characteristics of extractive economic
institutions are: lack of law and order, insecure property rights, entry
barriers and regulations preventing functioning of markets and creating a
non-level-playing field. Characteristics of extractive political institutions
are: concentrating of power in the hands of a few without constraints,
checks and balances or rule of law. Extractive institutions exist because
there are powerful vested interests who stand to lose if the institutions were
to become inclusive. Extractive institutions are normally the feature of
monarchy, feudal system, political or military dictatorships, fascism,
socialism and communism. Capitalist societies that are not fairly capitalist,
or where crony capitalism prevails, may also lead to extractive institutions.
Inclusive institutions are the opposite of the above. Their characteristics
include: encouragement of investments; harnessing the power of markets by
better allocation of resources; allowing entry of more efficient firms; ease
of starting businesses and provision of finance for them; and generating
broader participation in the economy through education and ease of entry
for new entrants. Growth under inclusive institutions involves both creative
destruction (replacement of the old methods, technology, industries by new)
and investment in technology.
Inclusive institutions are not compatible with socialism, communism
and feudal societies, or with dictatorships and monarchies. Only a society
with competitive capitalism is capable of having inclusive institutions.
INDIA A FIRST-WORLD COUNTRY BY 1980?
Yes, certainly. Extrapolating the time it took Singapore, South Korea
and Taiwan to become first-world countries by adopting competitive
capitalism, and the time it took West Germany and Japan to rise from the
ashes of the Second World War by adopting capitalist economy, it seems
reasonable that India would have been a prosperous, first-rate, first-world
country by 1980 had it too adopted competitive capitalism and befriended
the West.
Unfortunately for the crores of starving Indians and millions of others
who had great hopes for themselves, their families and the nation after
independence, Nehru guided India into a poverty-and-misery-perpetuating
socialistic-bureaucratic black-hole. His descendants, Indira and Rajiv
Gandhi, by doing much more of the same, made the situation worse. UPA-I
and II, by part reverting to the Nehru-Indira disastrous ways, have reversed
the Narsimha Rao–Vajpayee upward trend.
“UNLESS PEOPLE CHANGE... CANT PROGRESS!” ARGUMENT
“People are like that… Unless people change… Unless the society
improves,... Unless the society takes active interest... nothing would
change… Politics is but a reflection of the society...” goes another
argument.
However, there is little evidence to show that the prosperous countries
have become prosperous thanks not to the competence of its leaders, but to
its amorphous public and civil society which suddenly decided to improve
itself and take active interest in the well-being of the nation. There is no
evidence to show that it was not Lee Kuan Yew and his band of competent
leaders, but the suddenly awakened common Singaporeans, who, by
themselves, took Singapore to such heights. Yes, good leaders choose
competent teams, inspire people, motivate them and take the nation ahead
with their cooperation; but it is rare that general public by itself, without a
competent leadership, transforms a nation. India’s tragedy has been a lack
of genuinely competent leadership. Our so-called great leaders were really
Lilliputs.
Common man is busy earning his or her livelihood. They are working
on their chosen vocations and thus contributing to the society. They have
outsourced supply of water, electricity and other utilities to companies at an
agreed payment. Similarly, they have outsourced development of the nation
and maintenance of towns, villages, cities, provision of security, and so on
to elected politicians and appointed bureaucrats and technocrats. Each of
them, whether a politician or a bureaucrat or a technocrat, is getting paid by
the public (indirectly through taxes) to perform its allocated work. Just as
each member of the public is doing its job (as a banker or an IT professional
or a factory worker, and so on), so also each of its (indirectly) appointed
persons (a politician or a bureaucrat or a technocrat) ought to do his or her
work. It is because these appointed or elected politicians and babus, whose
cost is borne by the public, are failing to perform their tasks that the nation
is going to dogs. Hence, it is illogical to blame the society or public. Of
course, having elected or appointed these politicians and babus, it is the
duty of the electing/appointing authority—the general public—to take them
to task for non-performance and ensure they serve them and do their
allocated task.
SPURIOUS REASONS FOR INDIAS FAILURE
Why has India failed? There are any number of spurious
reasons: problem of national character; people not being hard-working; lack
of discipline; corruption; colonial baggage; democracy, which is “soft”—
what is needed is dictatorship, preferably military dictatorship. Those who
advance such pleas should be asked: “Why was the economy doing
relatively much better after 1993? Had the lazy of the old days suddenly
became very hard-working? Had the national character changed for the
better? Were people suddenly more disciplined? Why the Indian software
professionals proved themselves to be highly competent and hard-
working?” The real reason for the woes had nothing to do with those
spurious factors. It was a plain, bad, borrowed Nehruvian economic model
of socialism that did us in. There was a brisk progress even with marginal
liberalisation.
UNLESSPEOPLE WITH CHARACTER”, CANT TAKE OFF!
So goes the plea of many. Including that of the organisation devoted to
“character building”, and which claims monopoly on patriotism, on “what
is good for India”, and on prescriptions for setting the country right.
These advocates of “character building” need to be asked: “Has the
Indian character changed for the good or for the worse during the last 66
years after independence? Their answer would mostly be: it has changed for
the worse. If so, where is the guarantee it would improve in the future. And,
what if the character continues to remain the same for the next 1000 years?
Is India then doomed for another millennium?”
Among the best cities in the world are several from Australia, which is
now a first-rate, first-world country. It has no great civilisational heritage.
Nor can it boast of “character” that has propelled it to where it is now. Their
“character” heritage comprises murderers, rapists, dacoits, thieves, debtors,
fraudsters, and the like, who were herded in ships in Britain and brought to
Australia to undergo their jail terms. January 26 is celebrated as Australia
Day, because in January 1788, eleven ships packed with convicts from
Britain landed at Botany Bay in Sydney leading to the formation of the
colony of New South Wales in Australia.
Priests, reformers and character-builders did not land in Australia to
uplift the characters of the settler-convicts who made Australia their home.
However, Australia dramatically progressed despite the “bad” characters
and despite the absence of “character-builders”. Why? How? That’s what
one must try to understand, and apply the lessons learnt to India, where
applicable, rather than advancing silly pet theories like “requirements of
character”. Competitive capitalism lies at the root of their prosperity. They
never touched socialism even with a long pole.
Lee Kuan Yew and his band of competent leaders of Singapore were not
“Character-Builders”. They didn’t have that luxury of time, nor did they
believe in those crazy notions. They knew what mattered was forward-
looking economic policies and good governance. They therefore focussed
on implementing solid competitive capitalism, coupled with developing
well-paid, merit-driven and competent bureaucracy.
In the process of building and enhancing competitive capitalism, and
with increasing prosperity and peace both in Singapore and Australia, the
“character” automatically “improved”! It is well to remember that character
is also shaped by economic condition. You can’t have millions in hunger
and poverty and in wretched condition and with little to look forward to,
and expect people to develop “good character”!
WHAT IS REQUIRED ISTHE SPIRIT OF SACRIFICE”!
Not true.
It would suffice to quote Ayn Rand:
“America’s abundance was created not by public sacrifices to ‘the
common good,’ but by the productive genius of free men who
pursued their own personal interests and the making of their own
private fortunes. They did not starve the people to pay for America’s
industrialization. They gave the people better jobs, higher wages
and cheaper goods with every new machine they invented, with
every scientific discovery or technological advance—and thus the
whole country was moving forward and profiting, not suffering,
every step of the way.”
Said Adam Smith in ‘The Wealth of Nations’: It is not from the
benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our
dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.”
“SCIENTIFIC” SOCIALISM A CONTRADICTION IN TERMS!
Theory of Non-Affluent Society
Marxism and socialism were something Nehru was sold out on since the
1920s, wrote approvingly about in his books, advocated vigorously all
through, and, unfortunately for India, implemented it post-independence in
his own Nehruvian way.
This is what Nehru said in his presidential address at the Lucknow
session of the Congress in 1936:
“I am convinced that the only key to the solution of the world’s
problems and of India’s problems lies in socialism, and when I use
this word I do so not in a vague humanitarian way but in the
scientific, economic sense. Socialism is, however, something even
more than an economic doctrine; it is a philosophy of life and as
such also it appeals to me. I see no way of ending the poverty, the
vast unemployment, the degradation and the subjection of the Indian
people except through socialism. That involves vast and
revolutionary changes in our political and social structure, the
ending of vested interests in land and industry, as well as the feudal
and autocratic Indian States system. That means the ending of
private property, except in a restricted sense, and the replacement of
the present profit system by a higher ideal of co-operative service. It
means ultimately a change in our instincts and habits and desires. In
short, it means a new civilisation, radically different from the
present capitalist order. Some glimpse we can have of this new
civilisation in the territories of the U.S.S.R. Much has happened
there which has pained me greatly and with which I disagree, but I
look upon that great and fascinating unfolding of a new order and a
new civilization as the most promising feature of our dismal age. If
the future is full of hope it is largely because of Soviet Russia and
what it has done, and I am convinced that, if some world
catastrophe does not intervene, this new civilisation will spread to
other lands and put an end to the wars and conflicts which
capitalism feeds... Socialism is thus for me not merely an economic
doctrine which I favour; it is a vital creed which I hold with all my
head and heart...”{URL28}
Nehru stuck to his position on socialism and communism despite the
increasing evidence of their global failure, and the immense misery and
totalitarianism they brought about. And, despite irrationally and
unscientifically ignoring the facts and evidence, he flaunted himself as of a
rational and scientific temperament.
For the context of this book, we will use leftism, socialism, scientific
socialism, communism, Marxism and socialistic state interchangeably to
mean dominance of the state, pubic and state sector at the commanding
heights of the economy, predominant state controls of the economy and
means of production, over-regulated bureaucratic state, mai-baap Sarkar
and lesser or marginal role for the private sector and individuals. We are not
implying socialism or socialistic state to mean a welfare state or a state
engaged in social justice and equality, because as per actual global
experience such a socialistic state as just defined by us is neither capable of
ensuring general welfare nor social justice nor equality.
Marxists call their socialism scientific socialism, as if the self-assigned,
self-adulatory adjective scientific is sufficient to testify to it being scientific
—correct; however preposterous it might be from a genuine scientific
angle, where the litmus test is the real practical proof. Mere dialectics of
self-serving arguments and logic does not result in truth! Marxism as a
science or as an alternate economic thought for a nation to build on has
miserably failed—it has globally been proven wrong both in theory and in
practice.
Those who do not genuinely understand science or scientific-methods
are taken-in by mere allusion to something as scientific. Many became
Marxists because being so implied being scientific-spirited, rational,
progressive, pro-poor intellectual, aligned to the forces of history! Rather
than being aligned to the forces of history or being on the right side of it, to
the dismay of the Marxists, the unfolding history proved them to be on the
wrong side; and their “science”—“scientific” socialism—turned out to be
an alchemy!
The capitalist economic thought, the capitalist societies and the
associated democratic system themselves evolved and adapted since the
time of Marx in such a way that they not only brought unprecedented
prosperity to the concerned nations, they also significantly uplifted the
status of the masses—falsifying, in the process, many of the foundations
and assumptions of Marx.
Of course, that doesn’t lessen the genius of Marx. He contributed to the
economic thought, the political thought, the social science and the
knowledge of the evolution of societies and religion in a very major and a
tremendously impactful way. Not just the converted, the others too were not
left untouched by his thought. Writes John Kenneth Galbraith in ‘The
Affluent Society’: “Marx profoundly affected those who did not accept his
system.” Perhaps, the evolution of capitalism itself was affected by his
thought—becoming more inclusive. Writes Galbraith further: “In part this
was the result of the breath-taking grandeur of Marx’s achievement as an
exercise in social theory. No one before, or for that matter since, had taken
so many strands of human behaviour and woven them together...”
It doesn’t matter if his theory or line of reasoning has proved to be
partly or largely erroneous. Current capitalist economic thought is not
exactly what Adam Smith propounded. That doesn’t lessen Adam Smith’s
contribution. Certain conclusions of Ricardo and Malthus have proved to be
wrong. But, they helped bring focus on important economic aspects. The
current atomic model is not what Rutherford proposed. Newton’s laws of
motion have been superseded, or rather refined, by the Einstein’s theory.
But, that doesn’t make them less of a scientist.
In science, society, economics and indeed all disciplines knowledge
evolves, concepts change, new theories replace old ones in the light of new
experiments, experiences and knowledge gained. To be scientific is to keep
an open mind on things, to be willing to change, to be ready to jettison the
old in the light of new evidence, and to go by actual practical results.
The quest for justice, the empathy for the poor and the deprived, and the
idealism that drove Marx and Engels has to be acknowledged, respected
and emulated. However, if Marxism was indeed “scientific”, then to elevate
it to a dogma or a religion that can’t be questioned is itself unscientific. The
proponents of “scientific” socialism have not been scientific enough to
factor in the changes since the death of Marx, and stick to the dogma. Sadly,
Marx himself, once he had built up his arguments and theory, chose to
ignore many facts and statistics that had come to light during his own
lifetime, for they interfered with his constructs. He clung to only those facts
that fitted-in with his theory. His method itself was therefore unscientific.
Further, Marx didn’t elaborate on the nature of society and organisation
that would replace capitalism, and how it would be managed, except talking
vaguely about the “dictatorship of the proletariat”without allowing for
the possibility of the Frankenstein it would unleash, and the surreal “1984”
it would beget.
Practice Proves the Theory Wrong
For anything to be scientifically correct, it has to be proved truly and
convincingly in practice, without a shadow of doubt. Till the same is done,
it remains merely a conjecture, a hypothesis, a theory. Has the so-called
scientific socialism or Marxism proved successful anywhere in the world in
practice? No.
Facts, figures, statistics and ground-level experiences of various
countries prove that all brands of leftist politics—Communist, Socialist,
Fabian, Nehruvian, and so on—are inherently incapable of delivering
anything positive for any nation or for its poor. In fact, they have actually
been at the root of poverty, want and stagnation.
Dismal fate of all nations that went socialist proves the point. Take
USSR. It claimed to be following scientific socialism or Marxism. But,
what were its practical results? It drew an iron-curtain so that no one got to
see the disaster: the wide-spread poverty and famine and suppression of
human rights. Had things been really good, why would USSR be so
secretive about it, and not let those interested—journalists, writers,
academicians, researchers, politicians, sociologists, and general public—
have unrestricted access and see the state of affairs for themselves,
especially when they wanted other nations to emulate them, and go
communist! Why only guided tours, under strict supervision? Whom were
they fooling?
Perhaps people like Nehru. One guided tour in 1920s, and Nehru
returned fully sold out, like school-boys taken on guided tours! Subsequent
guided-tours of both Nehru and his daughter post-independence to the
USSR, and both were re-sold!! Ultimately the USSR fell apart, and all its
parts are still struggling to throw away the bad old days of communism.
Nehru wrote in ‘Discovery of India’:
“…I had no doubt that the Soviet Revolution had advanced human
society by a great leap and had lit a bright flame which could not be
smothered, and that it had laid the foundations for that new
civilization towards which the world could advance.”{JN}
Contrast this with what Bertrand Russel had to say after his visit to
Russia:
“…the time I spent in Russia was one of continually increasing
nightmare. I have said in print what, on reflection, appeared to me to
be the truth, but I have not expressed the sense of utter horror which
overwhelmed me while I was there. Cruelty, poverty, suspicion,
prosecution formed the very air we breathed. Our conversations
were continually spied upon… There was a hypocritical pretence of
equality… I felt that everything that I valued in human life was
being destroyed in the interest of a glib and narrow philosophy, and
that in the process untold misery was being inflicted upon many
millions of people…”{BNS/191-2}
One is not likely to come across a more hilarious indictment of
communism than what the author Tim Harford says in ‘Adapt’. First, the
background. We learn by understanding why and how a thing works. We
also learn by understanding why a thing does not work. The normal method
is the former, the latter being an add-on: understand the normal working,
and as an additional learning, examine also the abnormal working. In the
field of neuroscience, however, the study of the abnormal is the normal
method of learning. Observe the abnormal behaviour and determine which
part of the brain is responsible for it—that’s the way to understand the
brain. As VS Ramachandran, whom Richard Dawkins calls “the Marco
Polo of neuroscience”, says in his book ‘The Tell-Tale Brain’: “My
approach to these questions has been to study patients with damage or
genetic quirks in different parts of their brains that produce bizarre effects
on their minds or behaviour.”
Reverting to Tim Harford in ‘Adapt’:
“The Soviet Union is to economics what Phineas Gage [a brain-
injury victim] is to neuroscience. Neuroscientists study patients with
damage to specific regions of the brain because their plight
illuminates how the brain is ordinarily supposed to work. In much
the same way, economists study dysfunctional economics when
attempting to figure out the secrets of healthy ones. It is of course
not a new insight that the Soviet system failed, but the unexpected
details of why it failed are often glossed over—and they hold an
important lesson...”
Ultimately the USSR fell apart, and all its parts are still struggling to
throw away the bad old days of communism. Millions died from hunger and
famine in Soviet Russia, yet the communist leadership did not have the
heart to save them by seeking help from outside, lest the outside world
became aware of the pathetic conditions. Same with China under Mao—
about 40 million perished in famines!
Country-wise unofficial estimates of the total number of persons who
perished thanks to communism, through man-made famines and state-terror,
as per The Black Book of Communism are: USSR–20 million, China–65
million, Cambodia–2 million, North Korea–2 million; the world-total being
around 100 million! Compare this with the estimate of Holocaust victims at
about 6 million, and total World War II military deaths of all countries put
together at about 25 million.
Take the case of East Germany: contrast it with the prosperity in West
Germany. Why the Berlin Wall ultimately fell? See the fate of the East-
European countries: Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Poland, Bulgaria,
Romania. Consider the case of Albania under its Mao—Enver Hoxha. What
of Cuba under the "great" revolutionary, Fidel Castro: it is now desperately
trying to shed its socialistic past. Note the growing economy of Vietnam
after the gradual shedding of its communist policies. The terrible fate of
Cambodians under the Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot—brought out so
chillingly in the movie, The Killing Fields! Appalling conditions in North
Korea: George Orwell’s “1984” continuing in the 21st century!
Take the example of the relatively recent red-hot socialist showman
given to mega posturing on the world stage, Hugo Chavez, the president of
Venezuela for the last 14 years, who succumbed to cancer on March 5,
2013. Called Commandante by his followers, he implemented several
populist measures—which he could afford thanks to the country’s oil-
wealth—to remain popular. But, what is the legacy of his 14-year socialist
revolution? Decline in oil-production, a severely dented economy,
dysfunctional state institutions and administration, and Caracas, its capital,
turning into one of the most dangerous cities in the world. An article by
Rory Carroll in The Economic Times, Mumbai of 7 March 2013,
reproduced from NYT, reads: “The once mighty factories of Ciudad
Guayana, an industrial hub...are rusting and wheezing, some shut, others at
half-capacity. Underinvestment and ineptitude hit hydropower stations and
the electricity grid, causing weekly blackouts that continue to darken cities,
fry electrical equipment, silence machinery and require de facto
rationing...Reckless money printing and fiscal policies triggered soaring
inflation, so much so that the currency, the bolivar, lost 90 percent of its
value since Chavez took office, and was devalued five times over a decade.
In another delusion, the currency had been renamed ‘el bolivar fuerte’, the
strong bolivar—an Orwellian touch. Harassment of privately owned farms
and chaotic administration of state-backed agricultural cooperatives hit food
production, compelling extensive imports, which stacked up so fast
thousands of tonnes rotted at ports...Politicisation and neglect crippled the
state-run oil company PDVSAs core task—drilling—so that production
slumped. Populist subsidies reduced the cost of gasoline to $1 a tank,
perhaps the world’s lowest price of petrol, but cost the state untold billions
in revenue while worsening traffic congestion and air pollution...A new
elite with government connections, the “boligarchs,” manipulated
government contracts and the web of price and currency controls to finance
their lavish lifestyles...As Venezuela atrophied, he found some refuge in
blaming others, notably the “squealing pigs” of the private sector...” Of
course, this is not to overlook the blatant exploitation of Venezuela by the
West earlier—it is only to highlight that even if Chavez can be credited with
fittingly rebuffing the West, socialist policies implemented by him proved
to be no panacea.
There is not a single example of a country which prospered or whose
poor were better off under communism or socialism. The democratic
countries like the UK which were going downhill with their socialistic
policies did course correction under Thatcher and prospered. Near home,
see the unfortunate and the pathetic fate of India and its poor thanks to
India's socialistic policies, which are only gradually getting dismantled.
It is also worth noting that terror has always been a dominant factor in
communism. Besides, like the vandals of the olden times, they destroyed
precious cultural treasures. Pol Pot dismantled the Phnom Penh cathedral
and allowed the jungle to take over the Angkor Wat temples. In China
priceless treasures were smashed or set on fire by the Red Guards.
We know how communists wrecked West Bengal during their 34-year
rule! Those who still advocate socialistic policies do so not because they are
innocent about these facts, but because it suits them politically, so what if
those policies actually amount to being anti-progress and anti-poor.
Jayaprakash Narayan had remarked:
“History will soon prove that Communism, instead of being the
final flowering of human civilisation, was a temporary aberration of
the human mind, a brief nightmare to be soon forgotten.
Communism, as it grew up in Russia and is growing up in China
now, represented the darkness of the soul and imprisonment of the
mind, colossal violence and injustice. Whoever thinks of the future
of the human race in these terms is condemning man to eternal
perdition.”{SS/17}{SD/79}
Thanks to his half-baked ideas, Nehru bequeathed to India a toxic
legacy: a toxic political (dynastic and undemocratic), economic
(socialistic), industrial (inefficient and burdensome public and state sector),
agricultural (neglected and starved), geographic (most borders insecure),
administrative (incompetent and corrupt babudom), historical (Marxist and
Leftist distortion), educational (elitist, and no universal literacy), and
cultural (no pride in Indian heritage) legacy.
WHY THINGS NOT WORKED OUT BEFORE INDEPENDENCE?
One finds it immensely distressing that while we succeeded in doing all
the wrong or mostly wrong things after independence be it the socialistic
economic policy or the external security matters or internal security; we
failed to carry through any of the needed reforms or rectifications or
restructuring be it babudom or police or criminal-justice system or our
outdated laws or our past or contemporary history or our slavish colonial
culture. What is amazing is that Nehru, and after him, his dynasty, had a
field day doing as he (or they) pleased unconstrained by any policy
constraints. Hence, the baffling question. Why had the freedom-fighting
greats and the Congress not studied each important segment in sufficient
detail and why were they not ready with a blueprint well before the actual
independence.
They could have formed separate study/expert groups on policies on
economy, finance, transport infra-structure like railways, airways,
waterways and roads, power and energy sector, mining, environment, heavy
industries, small and medium industries, village industries and handicrafts,
trade and commerce, agriculture, allied-agricultural activities, literacy,
education at various levels, specialisation in arts, medicine, engineering,
science and other fields, research, historical research and recording of
correct past and contemporary history, industrial and agricultural training
and research, India’s borders with neighbours and their status and steps to
be taken after independence to firm up borders and ensure peace, foreign
relations, defence and external security, internal security and firmer
integration of all states, language policy, popularisation of Sanskrit,
compulsory English for all, massive mass-campaigns across India on
sanitation, hygiene, garbage-disposal, keeping environment clean, healthy
and garbage-free, and mass-campaigns to root out casteism and
communalism, and so on.
The study/expert groups should have visited other countries, particularly
the prosperous ones like the US (unlike the conducted tours of the USSR
designed to impress Nehru, and bias him into copycat Indian disaster), and
studied what could be applied in the Indian context. They should have
started building foreign relations with various countries, particularly the
US, as part of the independence movement. It would have helped the
freedom movement itself. The exercise would have thrown up many experts
in diverse fields who could have steered India right after independence. It
would have greatly helped mitigate the risk of letting only one person like
Nehru have his way.
The list given above is long, and the scope vast. But, the freedom-
fighters and the Congress had all the time in the world for it. Their major
agitations were only once-in-a-decade affairs: early 1920s, early 1930s and
early 1940s. There were long gaps between the major agitations to do the
suggested studies and to discuss and thrash out the details. Even in jails
during the agitations, they had plenty of time. Some did spend time reading
and writing. Some experimented with home remedies and food and fasting.
The remaining passed the time in various other ways. However, no set of
individuals or groups engaged themselves on any of the vital matters
enumerated above. You have volumes full of Gandhi’s writings, Nehru-
Gandhi correspondence, and voluminous writings by others. But, hardly
anything worthwhile on what really mattered for the independent India! So
irresponsible, and so surprising! What was the result? Post-independence,
whatever Nehru fancied, he did, and we know the result!
SOCIALISM BENEFITS ONLY THE VESTED INTERESTS.
Socialism and leftism is something which benefits large sections of
vested interests, but not the intended beneficiaries. Why do poor, who can
ill-afford, prefer private schools to government schools, private hospitals to
government hospitals? They know that this socialist claptrap is for the
babus and politicians to make money, not to help them. Communism and
socialism assume the State as a kind, empathetic mai-baap, meant to do
good for the people; when the experience and the practical reality is that
very often it is the State—through its agency of politicians, babus and
police—that is the biggest exploiter and mafia around.
WHY SOCIALISM REMAINS POPULAR?
It remains popular because it has very smartly been projected as pro-
poor. Who popularise it to be so? Of course, the ones who have vested
interest in it—the politicians, the babus and the leftist intellectuals, who
have spawned the academe, the establishment, the NGOs and the media.
What has been benefitting them, they publicise it as benefitting the masses.
And they succeed!
PREDOMINANCE OF LEFTIST CLAPTRAP
It is India’s tragedy that rational, bold, no-nonsense, rightist leadership
and influential intellectual class that unapologetically supports competitive
capitalism is absent. It is a crucial handicap in tackling poverty and in
India’s rise to a prosperous first-world nation.
It is high time the general voting public was educated to realise that
leftism, socialism and sops would take them nowhere and would condemn
them further to a life of want and misery; and that the jholawallahs, like the
religious and communal fundamentalists and the casteists, belong to the
past, and have no relevance for modern India.
Sadly the leftist “intellectual” brand and the leftist politics predominate
in India. It’s a vicious cycle. Leftist/socialist vote-catching-sops create
poverty and misery. In turn, poverty and misery fuel further socialism and
sops. The worse you get, the more leftist and socialist you become!
Practically all regional parties (SP, RJD, JDU, Trinamool Congress, ...)
profess to be socialists. The Congress is anyway an opportunist socialist
and “electoral secular” party. Even the BJP had once professed to be a
Gandhian socialist party. AAP, a young party, with many young
professional faces, was expected to be different. But, they plan to be more
socialist that all the other parties put together!
Is it that Indian intellectuals and politicians—both young and old—lack
courage, and want only to play the safe, populist way, and socialism comes
in handy.
That’s why when people say why does one have to hark back to Nehru-
Indira, who are long dead, one has to assert that their malinfluence still
prevails, and afflicts intellectuals too.
DEMOCRACY AND SOCIALISM: ARE THEY COMPATIBLE?
Many say they don’t like capitalism, but they want democracy. Many
talk of democratic socialism. But what is the historical origin of
“democracy”? Did socialism give rise to democracy? Did communism give
rise to democracy? No. Historically, all socialist and communist societies
have curbed freedom, democracy being a far cry. Did a feudal system or a
monarchical system or a dictatorship give rise to democracy? No.
It was the mercantile-industrial capitalism that led to democracy.
Democracy and capitalism go together. Competitive capitalism needs
democracy to thrive. Vice versa, democracy can thrive where competitive
capitalism exists. Of course, vitiated forms of capitalism, like crony
capitalism, can go along with dictatorships and oligarchies.
However, socialism and communism, where the state dominates and
predominantly controls the means of production, can’t have real democracy,
because true democracy is unsuited to those systems. That’s why when
India went more socialist under Indira resulting in difficult economic
conditions, she had to wind up democracy and declare Emergency.
WHAT TO FOLLOW? SOCIALISM, CAPITALISM, GANDHIISM...
Most Indian political parties profess to be socialists, and presumably
want some kind of socialism. Maoists in the red-districts of India and their
“intellectual” supporters want Maoism/communism. Gandhiites would like
Gandhian Gram Swaraj. Some say, “neither Marx not Market”, but some
form of “Ram Rajya”. Ultra-nationalists want something uniquely Indian.
Some ignoramuses would even like to go back to the pre-independence
days of the British! Then, there are the capitalists.
As many groups, as many systems. If this does not work, try that.
Funnily, no group poses questions relevant to arriving at a satisfactory
solution. For example, which system has triumphed in the world? Let’s not
be frogs-in-the-well, let’s look around in the world, let’s look at other
countries. Let’s check which countries are prosperous and rich and why?
How they achieved that? Which of them also have freedom and democracy,
and which don’t, and why? Which countries are struggling like India and
why? Which countries are poor and why are they so?
If one examines the above, one finds that socialist or communist
countries are invariably poor or struggling or not so well off. China
progressed very fast after it junked Maoism/communism and adopted
competitive capitalist practices. Certain countries are rich on account of
mineral wealth (like the Arabs) but their people have no freedom, and are
ruled by kings, monarchs, dictators or oligarchies. The rich countries,
whether of the West or Asia or elsewhere, like the US, the UK, France,
Germany, Canada, Singapore, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New
Zealand, have invariably both competitive capitalism and democracy. This
being the case, does it not make sense for India to also adopt competitive
capitalism. In fact, India has no alternative if wants to rise from its grinding
poverty, become prosperous and join the first-world.
As for people advocating Gandhiism or some form of “Indianism” or
some other prescription, it would be good to ponder over these questions:
To purchase a car, does one go for a tested model of a reputed brand of car,
or does one choose a car merely by its listed features, ignoring the fact of its
not having been well tested on the road? Does one take that risk? However,
you don’t mind crores being guinea pigs in your experiments with
Gandhiism or some form of “Indianism” or some other prescription! Even if
it has to be given a chance, try Gandhiism in a district, and monitor the
results. It is another matter that if any reasonable person were to read
Gandhi’s economic prescriptions that he wrote in “Hind Swaraj” in 1909
and later, he would get a shock.
CAPITALISM EVOLVED ORGANICALLY,
OTHERS ARE ARTIFICIAL CONSTRUCTS.
Most Indian political parties profess to be socialists, and presumably
want some kind of socialism. Maoists in the red-districts of India and their
“intellectual” supporters want Maoism/communism. Gandhiites would like
Gandhian Gram Swaraj. Some say, “neither Marx not Market”, but some
form of “Ram Rajya”. Ultra-nationalists want something uniquely Indian.
Some ignoramuses would even like to go back to the pre-independence
days of the British! Then, there are the capitalists.
As many groups, as many systems. If this does not work, try that.
Funnily, no group poses questions relevant to arriving at a satisfactory
solution. For example, which system has triumphed in the world? Let’s not
be frogs-in-the-well, let’s look around in the world, let’s look at other
countries. Let’s check which countries are prosperous and rich and why?
How they achieved that? Which of them also have freedom and democracy,
and which don’t, and why? Which countries are struggling like India and
why? Which countries are poor and why are they so?
If one examines the above, one finds that socialist or communist
countries are invariably poor or struggling or not so well off. China
progressed very fast after it junked Maoism/communism and adopted
competitive capitalist practices. Certain countries are rich on account of
mineral wealth (like the Arabs) but their people have no freedom, and are
ruled by kings, monarchs, dictators or oligarchies. The rich countries,
whether of the West or Asia or elsewhere, like the US, the UK, France,
Germany, Canada, Singapore, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New
Zealand, have invariably both competitive capitalism and democracy. This
being the case, does it not make sense for India to also adopt competitive
capitalism. In fact, India has no alternative if wants to rise from its grinding
poverty, become prosperous and join the first-world.
It’s not as if there is a menu of systems, and one can choose which to
adopt. Constructivism does not work in the field of economics. A set of
complex economic, mercantile, industrial, societal, survival, cultural,
psychological and organisational factors have led to the evolution of free
enterprise and capitalism. Free enterprise and capitalism were not
something that were first theorised, then planned, and then implemented or
rammed down. They evolved as a sequence of civilisational growth, were
taken cognizance of, and then theorised after the fact. Facts and practice led
to the theory, and then the theory enhanced the practice. Thereafter, it was a
beneficial evolving cycle, each helping enhance the other. Democracy, in
turn, evolved out of free enterprise and capitalism; and again there was a
cyclical effect between the two, each helping enhance the other.
In comparison, there is nothing natural, organic or evolutionary about
Socialism, Communism or Gandhiism. They are all artificial constructs.
You first theorise. Then you plan how the theory could be implemented in
practice. And, when you implement you find there are just too many
variables, too many unknowns, and too many practical difficulties and
unforeseen human factors and frailties to contend with. Russians tried it for
over 70 years, failed, reverted, and have since been struggling to implement
capitalism. Same with the East European countries that went communist
thanks to Russia. China wisely junked its Maoism before it was too late,
and steered itself capably into a version of capitalism.
Gandhiism! Nehru, Gandhi’s chosen disciple, shuddered even to try it,
despite Gandhi’s persuasion. It is another matter that Nehru tried another
bad artificial prescription—imitating the Soviets. In fact, Gandhi could not
implement his own prescriptions satisfactorily even in the restricted
environment of his own ashrams.
NEHRUVIAN SOCIALISTIC SUICIDE
Nehru uncritically accepted socialism. It is strange that while Nehru’s
books approvingly talk of Marxism and socialism, there is no comparative
analysis by him of much more proven competing economic thoughts. It was
as if Adam Smith, Alfred Marshall, JS Mill, John Maynard Keynes and
others did not exist for Nehru. Nor did he care to read Milton Friedman
(1912–2006) or Friedrich Hayek (1899–1992). Nehru just went by what
was popular and fashionable among the upper classes in Britain, without
any deep study of economics (despite many years in jail where he had all
the time in the world, and access to books), or even a reasonable or
understanding of its basics, although economics is a most vital subject for
any political leader. Economics is a serious subject for its affects the lives of
millions, and for Nehru to take up a firm position on one trend of
economics without critical appraisal of the alternatives was not only unwise
in the academic sense, it proved disastrous to the nation in practice.
Further, even if Nehru mistakenly believed that communism was doing
good for one country, the USSR, how was it that he did not notice the many
countries prospering under capitalism, like the US, the Western-European
and the South-East Asian countries. Was Nehru, the “scientifically-minded”
person, going more by personal bias, whims and fancies, rather than by
facts!
As the Nehru years rolled by, the numbers started causing concern, state
of the nation went from bad to worse, and famine conditions developed.
Scientific thinking, of which Nehru was a passionate advocate, demands
that you take facts and statistics seriously, analyse data, find the reason,
check where you have gone wrong, find what other countries are doing and
succeeding, and do a course correction. But, since you were never
genuinely scientific in the first place, where was the question of any course
correction? You and your socialism and your path could not be wrong. You
cannot lose face. Persist. Invent excuses: Public Sector is not supposed to
make profit!
Although one can’t doubt Nehru’s good intentions, one can’t ignore the
fact that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Post-independence, and till the early 1950s, India did command great
respect and prestige around the world, and there were lots of expectations
from democratic India as a beacon for other developing countries,
particularly the erstwhile colonial ones, to follow. Unfortunately, Nehru’s
policies proved so disastrous on the ground that all hopes stood belied.
Nehru’s socialism delivered a monumental tragedy lacking not only in
growth and poverty alleviation, but also in delivering social justice.
Nehru, through his anti-private-sector policies, throttled
industrialisation. Although, in comparison with the deliberate neglect in the
British period, the progress in industrialisation during the Nehru period was
much better owing to significant public sector investments. British set up
or allowed setting up of only those minimal things that helped them in their
trade, business and greed—not what was required for a country like India.
Post-independence industrialisation was also helped by the very
significant second world war sterling debt repayments by the UK, and aid
by other countries like the US, the USSR and Germany. However, when the
repayment of the sterling debt by the UK tapered off, and not much further
foreign aid was forthcoming, and the public sector into which Nehru had
sunk the investment was either in loss or not able to generate adequate
surplus, the industrialisation momentum began to taper off, as there were no
funds; and given Nehru’s socialistic approach, the private sector was
anyway shackled!
Further, not learning anything from Japan and others, who had
dramatically prospered with their outward-looking, export-led growth, India
under Nehru went in for inward-looking, import-substitution model,
denying itself a world-class, competitive culture, incentive for production of
quality products, share in the world-trade, and the consequent prosperity.
Instead, India invested heavily in the inefficient public sector, over-
regulated and strangulated private enterprise, shunned foreign capital, and
ignored better technology. India under Nehru also neglected the two vital
sectors—agriculture and education.
Nehru went socialistic where he should not have—in industrialisation;
and did not go socialistic where he should have—in agriculture and land
reforms. The renowned economist Jagdish Bhagwati had suggested that
probably Indian needed capitalism in industry and socialism in land. But,
Nehru did the reverse—besides wrong notions, the main factor was votes:
Why annoy the powerful landlords and landed class? Writes Kuldip Nayar
in ‘Beyond the Lines’{KN}:
“...I got hold of the report by Wolf Ladejinsky, a Ford Foundation
hand. He had been deputed to assess the extent to which India had
instituted land reforms. His report vehemently criticized the
government for having reforms on paper but doing very little on the
ground. Nehru had taken some steps to stop the zamindars from
evicting the landless but Ladejinsky had found them ‘too
inadequate’. Surprisingly, it was Nehru who had stopped the report
from being made public... Nehru abandoned the proposal to initiate
drastic land reforms when he found that the states were opposed to
the measure. This sent a wrong message to the country and proved
yet again that he hated to join issue when vested interests were
involved.”{KN}
Nehru and his team were seemingly innocent of the basics of
economics: without a prosperous agriculture, you can’t have agricultural
surplus, and without that, you can’t feed the growing urban population and
sustain industrialisation. Yet, they neglected agriculture, which adversely
affected industrialisation, and resulted in mass poverty, hunger and famines.
India under Nehru became a land of the hungry millions, and was forced to
go around the world with a begging bowl.
Congress also allowed the working class the pleasures of not working
for the sake of votes and politics, lowering their productivity and spoiling
the work-culture. There are so many examples. An engineer at Bhilai Steel
Plant (BSP), a public sector unit, narrated that pending allotment of suitable
quarters, he was given temporary accommodation in a sector, where his
neighbour was a steel-plant worker staying in BSP-provided quarters. The
worker went to the steel plant only three to four days a week. Rest of the
time he used to be generally drunk. He would somehow have his attendance
marked for the other days too. Not only that, he used to mark double-shifts
too—having worked extra-eight hours, for which the payment was double!
Nobody—his boss or senior officers—dared do anything, for he was an
active member of the Workers Union. Nehru wanted India to advance
industrially through the public sector peopled by such non-working working
class, and a management, subservient to the politicians, that dare not
question the non-workers! In due course, public sector management too
became indifferent, incompetent and corrupt—like the IAS-IFS-IRS-IPS
combine.
Gurcharan Das mentions in his book ‘India Unbound’ that soon after
Independence, Kasturbhai Lalbhai undertook the pioneering work of
establishing a chemical plant in collaboration with American Cyanamid. It
was in the wilds of Gujarat. He built a whole township for the plant and
provided jobs to many tribals. He named it Atul—the incomparable. He
invited Nehru in 1952 to inaugurate it. However, Nehru agreed after
considerable reluctance. Why? Because, it was in the private sector!
Despite Sardar Patel’s objections, Nehru pushed through the Industrial
Policy Resolution in April 1948 that reserved many areas under the state
sector: railways, defence manufacturing, atomic energy, and so on. Further,
new enterprises in steel, coal, ship-building, communications, and many
others could only be under the state sector.
By 1954, Nehru made Parliament accept as the aim of economic
development the “socialist pattern of society”. Socialism was enshrined in
1955 as the official policy of the Congress at its Avadi session. The 1956
version of the Industrial Policy Resolution made the state even more
dominant—it allowed new ventures in textiles, automobiles and defence
only to the state, and vested exclusive controls to it over many other sectors.
Wrote MKK Nair:
“As a Socialistic pattern of economy had been adopted by the
Parliament in December 1954, the new industrial policy embraced
the same objective… An important aspect of socialism was
establishing Government control over sectors that brought financial
wellbeing. With that in view, the importance of public sector was
enhanced and industries that would be brought into it were listed.
They included explosives, arms, defence equipment, atomic energy,
iron & steel, heavy metallic castings, mining machinery, heavy
electrical equipment, coal & lignite, petroleum, mining for Iron,
Manganese, diamond & minerals for atomic energy, aircraft
manufacture, air transportation, railways, ship building, telephone
and electricity generation.”{MKN}
A series of Five-Year Plans started from 1952 that sank precious
investment in the inefficient public sector, and rather than enhancing the
growth rate, made it crawl at 3%. Much needed foreign-investment was
shunned, thanks to anti-colonial mindset. Agriculture was so neglected that
by 1957 India’s agricultural output fell below that of 1953! Famine-like
conditions developed, and India began to import foodgrains.
All these inaugurated an era of stifling private enterprise, grievously
hurting industrialisation and development, severely limiting employment
opportunities, plunging the country in chronic poverty, and promoting
debilitating babudom and endemic corruption.
Democratic and liberal Nehru was able to manage dissent so effectively,
through various subtle means, that whether it was the press or the
opposition or even the opponents within the Congress, he was able to carry
through his policies—that ultimately proved disastrous. The voices of
dissent were muffled through various covert and overt methods, using
carrot and stick. The initial opponents of socialism ended up defending
nationalisation in order to remain in his good books.
Many industries were barred for the private sector. When entrepreneurs
in the countries in Southeast Asia, like South Korea, were being encouraged
to expand and set up industries and their government was offering them
cheap credit, here in India we were doing the opposite: GD Birla was
refused a license for setting up a steel plant; scores of business proposals of
Tatas were rejected; Aditya Birla, looking to the hostile business
environment in India, chose to set up industries outside India;...the list is
endless.
Krishna Menon [the right-hand man of Nehru] had reportedly snubbed
offers of the Japanese corporate representatives for collaboration saying it
was out of question on account of the vast differences in the policies of the
two countries.{DD/346}
Given license-permit-quota-raj, reluctance to give licenses to the so-
called “monopolies”, anti-business policies and extortionist taxes—
maximum slab rate being over 80%—industrialisation had to suffer.
Industrialisation and industries were sought to be controlled and managed
by Nehru’s IAS babus who knew next to nothing on how to run an industry.
Nehru and the socialists had very simplistic notions on wealth
creation: Nehru thought that all it took to have economic prosperity was to
invest in industrialisation, especially in heavy industries, and to put babus in
charge.
Wrote a bureaucrat of those times MKK Nair:
“When factories in other areas began to be set up, experienced
managers were not available and ICS officers were appointed to
head public sector industries. But their training and experience were
not suitable for industrial management. Many of them were too old
to grasp the new culture of management. Thus, public sector
companies began to be operated like Government departments…
“Both S N Mazumdar, General Manager of Rourkela [Steel Plant]
and S N Mehta, General Manager of Bhilai [Steel Plant] were
highest level ICS officers. They could work efficiently as
Commissioners, Board Members or Chief Secretaries and discharge
their duties with great aplomb. But they were frightened to spend
two hundred crore Rupees in three years to build a million tonne
steel plant. They were past the age to learn new ways of work. What
happened in Rourkela and Bhilai got repeated elsewhere too when
new public sector projects began to take shape…
“Industrial management is best left to those who are qualified to do
it. If IAS or IPS officers who are neither familiar with nor trained
for it are selected for it, it is a sin perpetrated on the public
sector…”{MKN}
With the IAS babus in-charge, the expected results followed: Public
sector companies began to be run like government departments—lethargic,
over-staffed, and corrupt—with no understanding of process or products.
Market, competition, entrepreneurship, quality, top-line, bottom-line—
those funny words existed in the English dictionary in total contempt of the
Nehruvians. No entrepreneurship was required. Sarkar was the
entrepreneur. It would decide what to produce, what not to produce, and
how much to produce, and at what rate to sell—the market itself would be
controlled by Sarkar.
Nehru and the socialists never understood what it really took to create
wealth and banish poverty, and persisted with their sterile, copycat methods.
Socialists concerned themselves more with the distribution of wealth, than
with its creation. They shunned understanding the complexity of wealth
creation. Nations which understood this raced ahead, created wealth and
also managed to distribute it, while India failed to create the wealth itself,
what to speak of distributing it: India stagnated.
Being not a communist state, we cannot fully throttle private enterprise,
but we can certainly keep them on a tight leash—thought the thrilled,
socialist bureaucracy, sensing all power coming to them. It is the State
which has to be dominant, and has to achieve Commanding Heights. Still, if
anybody is foolish enough to still wish to set up private industries and
businesses, they need to first take our permission, and we would make it so
complex for them that most would give up even before they got
permissions, and those who manage to get permissions—of course, after
greasing palms—would face so many regulatory hurdles, in practice, that
they would give up later; except, of course, those who continue to grease
palms.
It would be wrong to call babus mere babus and not entrepreneurs. They
have been running very efficient private enterprises of loot for themselves
and their netas based on very skilful investment of their authority. It was
Rajaji who had so rightly coined the term licence-permit-quota raj, and
alleged that to be the reason for the Congressmen and the officials getting
rich.
Socialism and leftism is something which benefits large sections of
vested interests, but not the intended beneficiaries. Why do poor, who can
ill-afford, prefer private schools to Government schools, private hospitals to
Government hospitals? They know that this socialist claptrap is for the
babus and politicians to make money, not to help them. Communism and
socialism assume the State as a kind, empathetic mai-baap, meant to do
good for the people; when the experience and the practical reality is that
very often it is the State—through its agency of politicians, babus and
police—that is the biggest exploiter and mafia around.
Wrote a bureaucrat of those times MKK Nair:{MKN}
“The plight of State Public Sector is particularly pathetic. In Kerala,
the sector has no semblance of an industry and exists only for
political gratification. Factories are built here not for an industrial
purpose but to placate, in the manner of the ‘spoils system’
prevalent in USA, disgruntled MLAs who cannot be accommodated
in the cabinet or powerful politicians who have lost the election or
influential party members. These marginalized pests then loot public
wealth and do nefarious things using the public sector. What one see
in Kerala public sector will not be seen done by any politically
enlightened Government anywhere in the world. The rotten
practices began when coalitions of parties began forming the
Government. Chairpersons of public sector industries are not
selected by the Government or Cabinet but by Party Offices. When
a coalition comes to power, public sector units are split among its
constituents based on the number of elected members. Each party
decides who will be Chairmen and Directors of its units. Yes,
Directors are also decided by high level party committees. Thus
industries come to be ruled by politically excreted persons who
know nothing of industry and have no experience in managing it.
There cannot be a more ridiculous system than this to harm national
progress. No political party nor citizens’ fora that rush to organize
protests and agitations for insignificant issues has decried the
system. This is indicative of the complacent attitude of our general
public. One can see in Kerala industries that have run up losses
several times their invested capital and continue to loot the public
shamelessly. Expert committees have examined various aspects of
public sector and given good recommendations. But they are
unimplementable by coalition Governments because of the web of
deceit in which they are mired. Companies that should have been
liquidated or merged with others long ago continue unhindered and
patriotic citizens have to watch these goings-on helplessly. An entire
book will not suffice to describe the miseries that have descended
on the public sector. Managing Directors are appointed on political
or communal considerations. It is only in Kerala that one can see
those who know nothing of industry or management suddenly
becoming Managing Directors.”{MKN}
Investment in the public sector leviathan was a huge two-thirds of the
country’s investable funds during Nehru’s time, but to little avail—the
public sector churned out shoddy goods and remained in loss. Of the entire
paid-up capital in India, the share of the public sector rose to a massive 70%
by 1978, with little benefits accruing to the nation. Our extremely scarce
resources were squandered and precious public money was literally burnt
by the Dynasty in trying to do business; while the sectors for which a
government is primarily responsible remained neglected, and were starved
of funds.
The Western-European countries devastated by the Second World War
—particularly West Germany, which was reduced to rubble—recovered
from the ashes, progressed and became highly prosperous. Japan was totally
ravaged by the War and the Atomic Bomb. Remember that Raj Kapoor
song of the fifties, “Mera joota hai Japani ...” pointing to the torn shoes,
representing the condition of Japan then. Japan systematically went about
regenerating itself economically—something that Nehru should have
copied. Japan first made education universal and compulsory. Agriculture
was then modernised. Infrastructure—roads, rails and telecommunications
—was drastically improved; and all villages were linked. First light
industries, and then heavy industries were established. Thanks to these
measures, Japan recovered quickly, and grew at over 9% for over twenty-
three years, to become one of the largest economies of the world. India, in
contrast, was untouched by the war and the devastation. Yet, India remained
a poor third-rate third-world country unable even to feed its hungry
millions.
Why did India fail? There are any number of convenient and false
explanations: problem of national character; people not being hard-
working; lack of discipline; colonial baggage; democracy, which is “soft”—
what is needed is dictatorship, preferably military dictatorship. Those who
advance such pleas should be asked: “Why is the economy doing relatively
much better now? Have the lazy of the old days suddenly become very
hard-working? Has the national character changed for the better? Are
people now more disciplined?” The real reason for the woes had nothing to
do with those factors. It was a plain, bad, borrowed Nehruvian economic
model of socialism that did us in.
WHY PERSIST WITH THE FAILED MODEL?
Just because India, thanks to the lead given by Nehru-Indira, chose the
disastrous economic model of socialism, it does not mean we need to persist
with those defective and failed ideas of mankind. Sadly, Nehru’s legacy
lives on—his socialist way of thought still flourishes—and it remains a
challenge to uproot it. Outlook wise and also materially, India is still largely
feudal, and it appears that the feudal ways and the Marxist/socialistic ways
gel well, as both are driven by paternalistic mai-baap mentality: Sarkar
knows best.
As per the article “World’s Only RDC” in India Today’s issue of 12
August 2013, Japan, which had almost the same GDP as India in the early
1950s, grew so fast that by 1980, India’s GDP was a mere 17% of Japan’s.
Japan grew at massive 18% annually during the 15-year period starting
1965 and took its GDP from 91 billion dollars to a mammoth 1.1 trillion
dollars by 1980. In 1982, India’s per capita income was 39% higher than
China’s; but, by 2012, it had become mere 24% of China’s—during the
period China’s per capita income grew 30 times, while India’s grew mere 5
times. South Korea’s per capita income is currently 1400% that of India,
although at the time of our Independence it was on par! While India is
variously terms as a Developing Country or as LDC, Less Developed
Country, or as UDC, Under Developed Country, the article finds India
uniquely as an RDC—Refusing-to-Develop-Country.
That Japan achieved what it did, and so also South Korea, Taiwan and
Singapore, was because their leaders refused to follow the politically
convenient and self-serving populist socialistic path to nowhere. Thanks to
the wisdom that dawned upon China, it junked its socialistic past,
tremendously improved its governance, and is now a super power both
economically and militarily. That India remains an RDC is thanks solely to
our politicians, economists and intellectuals of the socialistic and leftist
variety.
The socialist monster unleashed by Nehru is worse than Frankenstein’s.
Frankenstein’s monster voluntarily decided to disappear after its creators
death. Not so the socialist monster. It continues with its insidious ways. And
so also India’s Kaliyug fashioned by Nehru’s socialistic dreams gone sour.
China bid good bye to Marxism in 1979; Berlin wall came down in
1989; USSR fell apart in 1991; host of Eastern-European countries have
given up the communist ghost; Cuba is lately struggling to liberalise; poor
North Koreans, thanks to continuing communism, remain condemned; yet,
in India, the killing fields of socialism are yet to be fully exorcised—
socialism is still respectable in India, many advocating it are still considered
intellectuals, while many socialists/communists continue to win elections.
Nehruvian socialism has yet to be given a burial. Unfortunately, several
prominent members of even young political outfits like the Kejrival’s AAP
mouth the same stale jargon that has taken India to dogs.
But then, why does socialism-leftism continue to remain popular. It
remains popular because it has very smartly been projected as pro-poor.
Who popularise it to be so? Of course, the ones who have vested interest in
it. The politicians and the babus have all the media and all the resources at
their command. What has been benefitting them, they publicise it as
benefitting the masses. And they succeed!
Although liberalisation since 1993 has resulted in a sea change, it has
not delivered enough, and the growth has not been inclusive enough. The
reason is not liberalisation—it is very insufficient liberalisation. The
necessary preventive, detective, regulatory and penal systems to control
corruption have not kept pace with the massive economic changes post-
1991, thanks to the rapacious politician-babu combine, who have retained
the pre-1991 setup. The human cost of delayed economic reforms is
tremendous—additional millions unemployed or under-employed,
additional millions of infant deaths, additional millions in poverty and
misery. But, all these, the Jholawallahs would not appreciate. They would
stick to their self-serving poverty-for-ever agenda, lest they become
irrelevant. People trapped in the mindset of Nehruvian socialism fail to
appreciate that India’s poorest would benefit substantially from economic
reforms.
Communists, socialists, Nehruvians and leftists have been very
inventive in labelling: “pro-poor” policies, “progressive” ideology,
“inclusive” growth,... What they say and propound is by definition
“progressive”, “pro-poor” and “inclusive”. But, the question is why despite
such policies for decades, there has been deficient progress, insufficient
reduction in poverty and non-inclusive growth. Is it that the labels are
actually the antonyms for what those socialist policies actually lead to?
Thomas Sowell, the American economist, philosopher and author, has
rightly commented: “Leftism or socialism in general has a record of failure
so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it.” Socialists strut
around pretending they are pro-disadvantaged and pro-oppressed. Nobody
can beat them in sheer hypocrisy. They are still engaged in their hopeless
fight against progress, and are committed to make a West Bengal of India.
People need to be educated to realise that ‘Left=NOT Right’; and that
‘Socialism=Hypocrisy’, ‘Socialism=No Progress’, ‘Socialism=Poverty’,
‘Socialism = Millions in Hunger’, ‘Socialism = Statism’,
‘Socialism=Actually-Anti-Poor-Pretending-Otherwise’,
‘Socialism=Rapacious and Domineering State’ and
‘Socialism=Kafkaesque-Bureaucratic-Controls’.
It is worth noting that it is the fast growth that saves lives and keeps
people from hunger and misery—and socialism ensures what people
mistakenly call the “Hindu” rate of growth.
WHAT THEY SAID OF NEHRU & SOCIALISM
This permit-licence-raj is not a bee in my bonnet but a great boa-constrictor
that has coiled itself around the economy.
—Rajaji in Swarajya of 15.1.1966 {RG3/415}
Poor countries are poor because those who have power make choices that
create poverty. Such countries develop “extractive” institutions that “keep
poor countries poor”.
—Daron Acemoglu and James A. Robinson,
‘Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity and Poverty’
Socialist institutions tend to be extractive. Nehru was the founder of the
extractive institutions that have been at the root of India remaining a third-
rate third-world nation.
While many studies have documented the predominance of the political left
in the academic world, the exceptional areas where they do not have such
predominance are precisely those areas where you cannot escape from facts
and results—the sciences, engineering, mathematics and athletics. By
contrast, no area of academia is more dominated by the left than the
humanities, where there are no facts to challenge the fantasies that abound.
Leftists head for similar fact-free zones outside of academia.
—Thomas Sowell
To cure the British disease with socialism
was like trying to cure leukaemia with leeches.
—Margaret Thatcher
The Soviet Union is to economics what Phineas Gage [a brain-injury
victim] is to neuroscience. Neuroscientists study patients with damage to
specific regions of the brain because their plight illuminates how the brain
is ordinarily supposed to work. In much the same way, economists study
dysfunctional economics when attempting to figure out the secrets of
healthy ones. It is of course not a new insight that the Soviet system failed,
but the unexpected details of why it failed are often glossed over—and they
hold an important lesson...
—Tim Harford, ‘Adapt’
Raja Vyapari taya Praja Bhikhari. —Indian proverb
The whole political vision of the left, including socialism and communism,
has failed by virtually every empirical test, in countries all around the
world. But this has only led leftist intellectuals to evade and denigrate
empirical evidence… …When the world fails to conform to their vision,
then it seems obvious to the ideologues that it is the world that is wrong, not
that their vision is uninformed or unrealistic.
—Thomas Sowell
If the future is full of hope it is largely because of Soviet Russia.
—Nehru
History will soon prove that Communism, instead of being the final
flowering of human civilisation, was a temporary aberration of the human
mind, a brief nightmare to be soon forgotten. Communism, as it grew up in
Russia and is growing up in China now, represented the darkness of the soul
and imprisonment of the mind, colossal violence and injustice. Whoever
thinks of the future of the human race in these terms is condemning man to
eternal perdition.
—Jayaprakash Narayan
The vice of capitalism is that it stands for the unequal sharing of blessings;
whereas the virtue of socialism is that it stands for the equal sharing of
misery ...Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and
the gospel of envy.
—Winston Churchill
The problem with socialism is that you eventually
run out of other people's money.
—Margaret Thatcher
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years
there'd be a shortage of sand.
—Milton Friedman
There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the
way of achieving the same ultimate goal: communism proposes to enslave
men by force, socialism by voting. It's the same difference between murder
and suicide.
—Ayn Rand
America’s abundance was created not by public sacrifices to ‘the common
good, but by the productive genius of free men who pursued their own
personal interests and the making of their own private fortunes. They did
not starve the people to pay for America’s industrialization. They gave the
people better jobs, higher wages and cheaper goods with every new
machine they invented, with every scientific discovery or technological
advance—and thus the whole country was moving forward and profiting,
not suffering, every step of the way.
—Ayn Rand
A young man who isn't a socialist hasn't got a heart;
an old man who is a socialist hasn't got a head.
—David Lloyd George, the British PM in 1920
People who believe in evolution in biology often believe in creationism in
government. In other words, they believe that the universe and all the
creatures in it could have evolved spontaneously, but that the economy is
too complicated to operate without being directed by politicians.
—Thomas Sowell
Leftists like Rousseau, Condorcet, or William Godwin in the 18th century,
Karl Marx in the 19th century, or Fabian socialists like George Bernard
Shaw in England and American Progressives in the 20th century saw the
people in a role much like that of sheep and saw themselves as their
shepherds… The vision of the Left is not just a vision of the world. For
many, it is also a vision of themselves— a very flattering vision of people
trying to save the planet, rescue the exploited, create “social justice,” and
otherwise be on the side of the angels. This is an exalting vision that few
are ready to give up, or to risk on a roll of the dice, which is what
submitting it to the test of factual evidence amounts to. Maybe that is why
there are so many fact-free arguments on the left, whether on gun control,
minimum wages, or innumerable other issues— and why they react so
viscerally to those who challenge their vision.
—Thomas Sowell
Mr Jawaharlal Nehru returned from Cambridge with notions of how an all-
governing interventionist state can force people into happiness and
prosperity through socialism...He sticks to this bias in spite of the
demonstration of world experience against it... I hate the present folly and
arrogance as much as I hated the foreign arrogance of those [British] days.”
—Rajaji{RG3/378}
How do you tell a communist?
Well, it’s someone who reads Marx and Lenin.
And how do you tell an anti-Communist?
It’s someone who understands Marx and Lenin.
—Ronald Reagan
It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble.
It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.
— Mark Twain
(Appropriate quote of Marx Twain in the context of Nehru’s
“understanding” of socialism and communism.)
Shaw had always preached the ownership of all forms of wealth by the
state; yet when Lloyd George budget imposed for the first time the slender
beginning of the super tax, no one made a louder squawk than this already
wealthy Fabian. He is at once an acquisitive capitalist and a sincere
communist.
—Winston Churchill
(Nehru was much impressed by Shaw’s Fabianism.)
In fact, Nehru’s prejudice—which he picked up at Harrow and
Cambridge—against capitalism had more to do with his cultivating himself
as an upper-class Englishman, who had a bias against trade, than on
understanding of economics or economic history; just as his socialism had
more to do with upper-class English Fabians (like Bernard Shaw), than with
any genuine experience of or revolt against poverty.
Nehru’s class or caste bias is apparent in his autobiography where he
mentions that “right through history the old Indian ideal...looked down
upon money and the professional money-making class" and that "today" it
is "fighting against a new and all-powerful opposition from the bania
[Vaishya] civilization of the capitalist West".
------
Nehru’s inability to rise above his deep-rooted Marxist equation of Western
capitalism with imperialism, and his almost paranoid, partly aristocratic,
distrust of free enterprise in its most successful form as ‘vulgar’, cost India
dearly in retarding its overall development for the remaining years of his
rule, as well as for the even longer reign of his more narrowly doctrinaire
daughter.
—Stanley Wolpert, ‘Nehru: A Tryst with Destiny’{Wolp2/447}
He [Nehru] had no idea of economics. He talked of Socialism, but he did
not know how to define it. He talked of social justice, but I told him he
could have this only when there was an increase in production. He did not
grasp that. So you need a leader who understands economic issues and will
invigorate your economy.
—Chester Bowles, the then US Ambassador to India
While I usually came back from meeting Gandhiji elated and inspired but
always a bit sceptical, and from talks with Jawaharlal fired with emotional
zeal but often confused and unconvinced, meetings with Vallabhbhai were a
joy from which I returned with renewed confidence in the future of our
country. I have often thought that if fate had decreed that he, instead of
Jawaharlal, would be younger of the two, India would have followed a very
different path and would be in better economic shape than it is today.{BK2/v}
{Lala/174}
— JRD Tata
It would be devastating to the egos of the intelligentsia to realize, much less
admit, that businesses have done more to reduce poverty than all the
intellectuals put together. Ultimately it is only wealth that can reduce
poverty and most of the intelligentsia have no interest whatever in finding
out what actions and policies increase the national wealth. They certainly
don't feel any ‘obligation’ to learn economics ... —Dr. Thomas Sowell
There was not much inhibition about asking for aid; and, according to some
critics, not much gratitude. A frequent note was: aid should be bigger... The
independence of the foodless or the heavily mortgaged debtor is normally
precarious... Prices nearly doubled during the time I was in India... Further,
the professional and the middle class, already ground down by taxation...as
well as by inflation, sink lower in the economic scale...State intervention,
too, grew apace under Nehru’s plans. Permits, licenses, controls, foreign
exchange prohibitions were always increasing. With them the corruption
increased too...The parlous food position in India, including the low, and
still falling, yield per acre was...dangerously concealed... through the
millions of tons of free or dumped food from the Unites States...It is hard to
escape the fear that the main achievement of Nehru’s economic and social
policy will turn out to be social disruption...And it is certain that over most
of India the low standard of living in the villages has not risen; over much
of India it has fallen, in the last ten years. Socialists governments,
notoriously, run into difficulties over food production; as Communist China
did in recent years, and as Soviet Russia has been doing even forty-odd
years after the Revolution...
—Walter Crocker, ‘Nehru: A Contemporary’s Estimate’{Croc/42-43}
I passed through some European capitals [in late 1950s] whose interest in
India had shrunk because this country appeared to them more in the role of
a client for aid than the leader of a new force in world affairs. The exception
was West Germany, the only Western nation which shows respect for Indian
culture. German Indologists study Sanskrit, whereas their British
counterparts confine themselves to the Indo-Muslim period.{DD/354}
—Durga Das
in the context of the “aid” mentioned above by Crocker
Here are some extracts from the interview the legendary Singapore
leader Lee Kuan Yew (LKY) gave to JRD Tata in 1974:
“We will allow the technology and the capital of the world to pour
into Singapore; indeed, we will have to search for foreign
technology and foreign capital… Take the Indian community in
Singapore. I do not think you can say of them that intellectually they
are superior to the Indians back in their own country, but they
flourish here because the environment we provide them ensures
political stability, an honest bureaucracy, and an economy based on
incentives… We in the government of Singapore come into the
economic picture not to run the economy, but to make it run. Only
where the private sector cannot deliver the goods, say, in housing,
do we come in. There is no question of the command economy, or
commanding the heights of the economy [like Nehru-Indira]. Even
when the state starts certain industries or services, we try to hand
them back to the people of Singapore [privatise]… Time is running
out; your people are too talented to allow this situation to continue.
Your young men and women are emigrating on a large scale. You
should provide them an economic environment which permits them
to give their best to the country… if your country is temporarily in
the grip of socialism that can neither achieve economic growth nor
make an impact on the poverty of the people, why can’t one your
federal states be made to serve as a model [for capitalist growth]?...
Let the people of India see its achievements, and then the other
States will want to follow…”{BNS/227-31}
NEHRUVIAN (AND NOT ‘HINDU’) RATE OF GROWTH
India’s poverty is self-inflicted, thanks to the self-destructive policies
followed, even though prescriptions for prosperity were available off-the-
shelf for many years, and there were any number of real, practical examples
to go by. Had Nehru’s government focused on its primary responsibilities
and desisted getting into business, had it allowed the freedom to public to
do business, India would have shot into double-digit growth rate in the
1950s itself—such were its advantages over other countries—and would
long since have been a part of the developed first world, rather than still
being a poor, pathetic, third-rate third-world country.
While the developing countries of SE-Asia, which had been far behind
India in 1947, raced ahead at 9–12% growth rate or more and became
highly prosperous, with infra-structure rivalling western countries, India
plodded along at what was derisively referred to as the Hindu rate of
growth of just 3%, and became a basket-case, begging aid and food from
all.
However, the term "Hindu rate of growth" is highly inappropriate and
unfair, besides being derogatory. Let us examine why?
One: The "Nehruvian rate of growth". The low rate of growth was
thanks to Nehru-Indira-Rajiv’s policies. If rather than the “Hindu rate of
growth” it was called the "Nehruvian rate of growth" or "Nehruvian
socialistic rate of growth" or “NIDP [Nehru-Indira-Dynasty policies] rate of
growth", one would have no quarrel.
Two: The “Colonial rate of growth”. The rate of growth during the pre-
independence period, the colonial period, was even less! In fact, it had even
turned negative during several long periods!! Why was the rate of growth
then not called the “Colonial rate of growth” or the “Christian rate of
growth” in a pejorative sense?
As per an estimate by Angus Maddison, a Cambridge
University historian, “India's share of the world income fell from 22.6% in
1700, comparable to Europe's share of 23.3%, to a low of 3.8% in 1952.”
Hindu-India had been highly prosperous in the past, thanks to its
massive “Hindu rate of growth”, which is why first the countries to the
northwest of India, and then the Western countries invaded it. Until the rise
of the West, India was possibly the richest country in the world, which is
why it presented an irresistible target for the ravaging Mongols and their
descendants, and then the West. Why then was the term "Hindu rate of
growth" not used in an adulatory sense?
Three: How do you explain the recent growth rate of over 9%? The
same India, after only part junking of the Nehru-Indira-Rajiv socialistic
policies, reached a growth rate of over 9%! Junk more of the Nehru-Indira
socialistic policies, and the growth rate will rise to double-digits.
Four: Absurdity of religious-cultural connotation. Many Islamic
countries prior to the world demand and discovery of oil were very poor.
Was their growth rate called the “Islamic rate of growth”? The growth rate
during the dark ages of Europe was static or negative, when during the
same period India was immensely rich and progressive. Was it ever called
the “Christian rate of growth”? Sri Lanka and Myanmar have had long
periods of no growth or measly growth. Were they castigated for being
under the spell of the “Buddhist rate of growth”? China’s growth rate after
going communist and till the end of the Mao-period was pathetic. Was it
termed the “Atheistic rate of growth”? Why associate “Hindu” with a rate
of economic growth unless there is an ulterior motive of deliberately
showing Hinduism in bad light? Of course, many use the term unfeelingly,
without being conscious of its implications.
Five: Nehru vs. Hinduism. Nehru was an agnostic, and was more
English than Indian, more western than eastern, more “something else” than
a Hindu, and therefore it is grossly inappropriate to name a rate of growth,
which was thanks to him and his dynasty, as “Hindu”.
Six: Why not “Secular” rate of growth? Nehru, Nehru-dynasty and
company have raved ad nauseum on “secularism”, without ensuring it in
practice. Why not credit the growth rate thanks to them as the “‘Secular
rate of growth”?
Seven: Socialism vs. Hinduism. Hindu-India has had long tradition of
free international trade and commerce, and of liberal religious and world
view. Such an ethos can never accept the Big Brother denouement or the
run-up to it. There is an age old Indian proverb: Raja Vyapari taya Praja
Bhikhari. That is, people become beggars when government enters into
business. A belief in self-reliance and an overweening socialistic state on
the part of Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira Gandhi actually did India in, rather
than something that had anything to do with Hinduism.
Eight: Socialism vs. Mahatma Gandhi and Others. Mahatma Gandhi
was no socialist. Nor were the other stalwarts like Sardar Patel, Rajaji and
Rajendra Prasad. All the four—Mahatma Gandhi, Sardar Patel, Rajaji and
Rajendra Prasad—quite unlike Nehru, could be considered as also
representing the Hindu ethos, and perhaps precisely for that reason they
were against socialistic claptrap of Nehru.
Nine: A camouflage. In any case, using “Hindu” as in “Hindu rate of
growth” in a pejorative sense is not only insulting, it camouflages the real
reasons—socialistic claptrap was never going to give you a respectable
growth rate to enable you to ameliorate the lot of the poor.
But, the question arises as to why did the term “Hindu rate of growth”
gain currency? Well, here are the reasons.
One: Raj Krishna. The term was reportedly coined by the economist Raj
Krishna to draw attention to the embarrassing rate of growth during the
Nehru-Indira period. India being predominantly populated by the Hindus,
he called it the “Hindu rate of growth”. But, of course, he didn’t mean it to
be insulting to Hinduism. He just used another term to represent India. It
would have been more appropriate had he used the terms like “Nehruvian
socialistic rate of growth”, which would have been really representative and
meaningful.
However, what is interesting is the way it was lapped up, used, and
made popular by the Nehruvians themselves, the socialists, and the leftist
intellectuals; and also by the India-baiters and the colonialists.
Two: Blame Hinduism rather than Socialism. Indian politicians and
bureaucrats never wanted to admit that the fault lay with the socialistic
apparatus. Why blame self? Especially, why blame something on which you
have fattened yourselves? The leftists, socialists and communists got prized
slots in the government or government-aided organisations, societies and
universities, and dominated the intellectual discourse in India: professors,
historians, economists, journalists, and so on. Socialism and Marxism could
not be wrong—what was required was more of it! The whole band, be it
politicians or bureaucrats or intellectuals, didn’t mind the blame shifting to
the religious-cultural heritage. Someone coined the term, the next one
picked it up, and it spread.
Three: The Secularists. For certain class of intellectuals the touchstone
of secularism is whether you can be abusive to Hinduism. The term
“Hindu” in “Hindu rate of growth” serves that purpose. It serves for them
the double purpose: camouflage the ills resulting from socialism, and be
also hailed “secular” the cheap way—by casting a slur on Hinduism.
Four: The Colonialists and the India-baiters. Other groups, which
received the term with glee, lapped it up, and enthusiastically promoted it to
disparage India, were the colonialists or those with the colonial mind-set or
the brown sahibs, or the India-baiters. Give power to the Hindus, and what
you will get is the “Hindu rate of growth”! Had the British Raj continued,
things would have been better!!
NEHRU + SOCIALISTS VS. SARDAR PATEL & OTHERS
The socialist-communist bug had started bugging several Indian leaders
since the 1920s. Many fell for it out of a fashion. It was “progressive”,
“forward-looking”, “scientific-minded”, “pro-poor”, “on the right side of
evolving history” to be so. Nehru, who knew or understood next to nothing
on economics, also fell for it: it made him look intellectual and pro-poor,
even as he lived like an aristocrat (on his fathers money)—imitating British
upper class leftists! How the failed idea of the 19th century became so
appealing is a mystery. Illiterates in economics fell for it, and even now fall
for it!
Socialistic wordings crept into the pronouncements of the Congress
when its Karachi resolution of 1931, drafted, inter alia, by Jawaharlal Nehru
committed itself, among other things, to “state ownership or control of key
industries and services”.
After Nehru became Congress president in 1936, he extolled the virtues
of socialism at the Lucknow session of the Congress. In the Congress
Working Committee of 14 Nehru [as President] had included 3 socialists:
Jayaprakash Narain (JP), Acharya Narendra Dev and Achyut Patwardhan.
Subhas Bose too was there. Soon after, Nehru had begun to sing socialism
in party forums.
This led to an acrimonious exchange between Patel and Nehru. Patel
objected to Nehru championing a creed of socialism which the Congress
had not even accepted. Sardar chastised a group of Congress politicians for
claptrap, catchwords and mere learned talk{Grov/373} when they initiated
the Congress Socialist Party as a faction within the Congress in 1934.
Sardar frankly told Acharya Narendra Dev what he thought of the
Socialists. Patel described the Congress Socialists as mere sappers and
miners of the Communist Party. Socialists Minoo Masani, Jayaprakash
Narain and others who used to be with Nehru later realised the truth of
Patel’s statements.
Socialists controlled about a third of the delegates in AICC, and along
with communists, they had planned to capture Congress. But, Patel stood
like a rock, and frustrated their efforts.
However, at that time, in the 1930s and 1940s, the opposition to
socialistic-communistic creed by the stalwarts like Gandhi, Patel, Rajaji,
Rajendra Prasad was unfortunately not as well-grounded, and not as
effective, as it should have been. The virus was not nipped in the bud
through an informed debate, and that led to its spread. Gandhi & Co lacked
the intellectual rigour to squarely deal with the question. When Nehru,
Socialists & Co strutted around showing themselves as intellectuals,
radicals and progressives; rather than exposing them, Gandhi & Co went
out of their way to show that they were more socialistic—simple living, no
property, working for the good of the public, particularly the poor. They
were indirectly extolling socialism! They were assuming socialism-
communism was pro-worker, pro-peasant and pro-poor, and that its
proponents believed in simple living; when it was actually the reverse.
Rather than showing Nehru & Co the error of their ways on socialism–
communism, Gandhi humoured Nehru, and went to the extreme extent of
unjustly favouring him, to ensure he didn’t break from the main-stream
Congress. Gandhi & Co only pointed out the socialists were trying to move
too fast. They wanted a step at a time. First gain independence, then do the
rest. And, of course, avoid class war. They never attempted to show that
socialism and communism were bogus solutions to end poverty; and that
even after independence it would be foolhardy to adopt socialistic creed.
There was enough material available, and sufficient examples, to expose the
socialistic-communistic creed, but Gandhi & Co did not study or analyse
them, or make use of them. If you invest precious time deliberating on
khadi, charkha, fasting, nutrition and medicinal experiments, non-violence,
and the associated fads and quackery, and fill-up volumes in repetitive
“gyan” and avoidable correspondence, where was the time to seriously
study and deliberate on what really mattered.
Emboldened by Nehru as the Congress President in 1936, the socialists–
communists also wanted to actively meddle in the affairs of the Princely
States. You are not able to do enough to get rid of the British from British
India, but you want to poke your nose in the over 500 Princely States too!
Irresponsibility and Socialism–Communism–Nehruvianism went hand in
hand. Nehruvianism was more a show off as something radical to remain
popular, particularly with the young. Gandhi disapproved of meddling in
the Princely States; and so also Patel. Thanks to the same, Patel could
ensure merger of all the Princely States into India; while Nehru badly
messed up the only Princely State he had taken (rather, usurped) charge of,
namely Kashmir.
Nehru led the country down the socialistic quagmire once the opponents
of socialism like Sardar Patel and Gandhi were no more. Sardar Patel had
remarked that a government which engages itself in trading [read
business] activities will come to grief{PNC/V-15/2}.
In his book ‘The Great Divide’ HV Hodson claims that in the list of the
cabinet submitted by Nehru in August 1947, Sardar Patel’s name was
initially missing! There could have been three reasons for it [not given in
that book]: One, Nehru feared Patel would oppose his socialistic policies.
Two, Patel commanded much greater support and respect and had the power
to have Nehru’s policies out-voted. Three, Nehru, the “great democrat”,
wanted to have only his way, and didn’t wish to share power.
Sardar Patel never believed socialism was a panacea like Nehru and
many other socialists, including Jayaprakash Narayan and Rammanohar
Lohia, believed. Sardar was liberal enough to even offer a deal to the
socialists on these lines: Select a province and run it on socialist
principles. If they did better than others, he would gladly hand over the
country to them.”{RG/491} The offer was not taken, as JP and Lohia later
recalled.
Said Sardar: Unlike many who indulge in the parrot-cry of socialism, I
have no property of my own. Before you talk of socialism you must ask
yourself how much wealth you have created by your labour… By
experience, I am convinced that what is necessary for us is to learn how to
produce more wealth and then to produce wealth and thereafter to think
what to do with it.”{SP3}
Though Patel openly befriended Birlas and businessmen, he was
independent of them. He never sought personal favours from them either
for himself or for his family. He led a simple life. Even though Patel was a
very successful lawyer earning substantially, once he got into the Freedom
Movement, he gave up everything. Sardar was the epitome of Gandhian
simplicity. He used to say: Bapu has told that those in politics should not
hold property, and I hold none.” His only daughter Maniben stayed in a
one-room apartment till her death in the 1980s. Patel was unlike the Leftists
who took money from the capitalists and abused them. Patel was unlike the
Nehrus who lived it off royally.
Sardar Patel had little patience with socialists: he found them to be
mostly just talkers, and with as many sub-groups as the sub-castes in India.
He had commented at the end of 1934: There are 84 castes among
Brahmins whereas, it would seem, there are 85 different types of
socialists!”{RG2/L-4243} He was also averse to an organised socialist sub-group
within the Congress.
Raising the dual membership issue, Patel had persuaded the Congress
Working Committee (CWC) in 1948 to amend the party constitution to
prohibit the existence of other parties with “a separate membership,
constitution and programme” within the Congress, resulting in the exit of
the Congress Socialist Party (CSP) from the Congress. Socialists, including
CSP, were close to Nehru, and this move came in the way of Nehru
imposing his complete domination on the party organisation.
It is also worth noting that unlike Nehru, who grew up enjoying an
aristocratic life; who even later was completely out of touch with the
Indian life even of his time, except with the life of the self-segregating
Anglicised set of upper India who lived in the so-called Civil Lines{NC2} as
Nirad Chaudhuri describes in his ‘Autobiography of an Unknown Indian,
Part-II’; and for whom Socialism, Communism, Fabianism were more of
academics, and devices to appear learned and empathetic towards the poor,
and were, in realty, tools to become popular and garner votes; Sardar Patel
came from poor, peasant background; was a rooted peasant leader
thoroughly familiar with the lives and problems of farmers and peasants;
had successfully led several notable peasant agitations against the British;
and was among the very first Congress leaders to get associated with
Ahmadabad’s Textile Labour Association back in 1917, much before
Gandhi’s non-cooperation movement commenced. He was the Chairman of
BB&CI Railway Workers Union in 1920. Patel was too rooted to get into
the airy nonsense of socialism that ultimately condemned India to remain a
poor, hungry, third-rate, third-world country, even as socialists and their
dynasties enjoyed a good lifestyle.
He wanted industries to spread and grow, as he believed “no country can
prosper without industries; nor can labour, in the modern sense, survive
without industry.”{SP3} While he wanted industrialists to realise that the
“labour is a driving force for the stabilisation of freedom; and no
Government can afford to ignore what should be due to them”{SP3}; stressing
the necessity for first creating wealth before it could be distributed, he told
labour “if there is no water in the well, none can draw any to drink.” On
socialism-nationalisation, he commented, “Nationalisation is worthwhile
only if we can manage to run industries. We have neither men nor the
resources even to run our administration.”{Grov/205} Of course, nationalisation
and state and public-sectors have since amply proved in practice, not only
in India, but globally, that even if you have the men, money and resources,
it is disastrous for any country to make business its business—which
Nehru-Indira Dynasty did.
During his inaugural address at ‘Indian National Trade Union Congress’
(INTUC) Session in Indore on 6 May 1949, Sardar Patel said, inter alia: “…
Some people want the Government to run everything, leaving out the
capitalists. But the Government of India today has not the resources to run
all industry by itself. If we try, we will not be able to run it for twelve
months, and we will incur losses. We have to act with discretion…”{SP3}
While Patel looked upon socialists as immature and misguided
romantics, and hence didn’t consider them as foes; he intensely disliked
communists, and had a contempt for them. He considered communists to be
trouble creators spreading disaffection and violence, having extraterritorial
loyalties, being dictated by people outside India, and betraying the interests
of the country, and working at cross-purposes with whatever was in the
interest of the Indian people, their freedom, and prosperity.
On 11 November 1949, addressing a conference of businessmen,
industrialists and labour leaders, Sardar Patel offered a practical solution to
the country's economic problems saying that “the key to our economic
situation lies in increased production”. Said Patel: “Spend less, save more
and invest as much as possible, should hence-forward be the motto of every
citizen in the country and all of you must see that it becomes the guiding
principle of your life. You can select for yourself any suitable means of
investment which are open to you, but only make sure that all the money
that you save is spent for national cause.”
Sardar Patel was not in favour of nationalisation, public sector, and
socialist system. He favoured private players and liberal economic policies.
Sardars economic model comprised three pillars: Industrial Growth,
Promotion of Private Entities, and Liberal Government Policies. Ideas of
Sardar Patel ultimately came as reforms of 1991, though not wholly.
Here is practical example of Sardars wise approach, and Nehru’s
unwise socialistic fad. Wrote Durga Das{DD/317}:
“…What mainly derailed businessmen politically was the action the
government took against firms suspected of evading taxes. Liaquat Ali
[then Finance Minister in the joint Congress-League government under
Nehru as the PM in 1946-47] had proposed a commission of inquiry and
drawn up a list of about 150 business houses under suspicion. [This Liaquat
Ali of the Muslim League had done deliberately to hit at the financiers of
the Congress; but Nehru was too full of himself to understand the
implications]. This action paralysed business leaders and most of them
never recovered from the shock.
“Sardar Patel told me that businessmen offered to settle their dues
collectively by depositing Rs500 million [a big amount then] in the
exchequer. This would have enabled them to bring out their black money
and use it legitimately.
“Patel favoured the deal because he wanted business to play its full role
in activating the country’s economy [a very sensible suggestion]. But
Nehru, for reasons of ideology [which later took India to dogs], would not
listen to him. The result was that not only did black market money not come
out but it kept multiplying. [That’s what happens: socialist policies always
result in the opposite of what they claim to intend.]”{DD/317}
Had Sardar Patel’s Free Market Economy Model been adopted, India
would have been a prosperous, first-rate, first-world country by 1980!
{ 2 }
Debilitating Babudom & Corruption
The government of my country snubs honest simplicity but fondles
artistic villainy, and I think I might have developed into a very capable
pickpocket if I had remained in the public service a year or two.
—Mark Twain
THE CURSE OF BABUDOM
The BPC Axis
It is unfair to only target the politicians. The greater culprit is the
Babudom—the IAS-IPS-IFS-IRS combine, those from the criminal-justice
system, and the bureaucracy lower down. Babudom is very intimately
related to socialism, poor rate of growth, continued poverty, injustice and
misery. The venal politicians, particularly the dynasts and the dynacracy,
that is, the dynastic democracy; the poverty-perpetuating socialistic claptrap
and populism and the crony capitalism that goes with it; and the callous,
incompetent, ineffective, kleptocratic babudom are intimately inter-related.
These three nodes that form the BPC-Axis—‘B’ for Babudom, the IAS-IPS-
IFS-IRS combine plus those from the criminal-justice system; ‘P’ for
dynasty-driven Political system; and ‘C’ for Crony capitalism—are
interdependent and feed one another.
Babudom: A Strong Pillar in the Foundations of India’s Misery
Isn’t it strange that while political parties excoriate one another, TV and
print media pans the political class, and NGOs and Civil Society groups
fulminate against them, hardly anyone highlights the venality, lack of
probity, incompetence and corruption of the babus, without whose
complicity or negligence no scam is possible. Khemka, a capable and
honest IAS officer who has been at the receiving end, had commented, If
bureaucrats did their duty, there would be no scams.”
Indeed, Babudom is a strong pillar of the foundations of India’s misery.
Babus: Responsible for the Misgovernance Mess
When a private company fails or does badly you blame its top-
executives, who are generally made to resign. The top executives of the
government are IAS-IFS-IPS-IRS combine. You have to blame them for
failure of India both at the Centre and in the states. Sadly, these non-
performers continue irrespective of their performance.
They sit at the top of the dung-heap, and are in many ways more
powerful than the politicians, who come and go every five years, while they
continue, irrespective of their performance, on account of their
constitutional sinecure. ICS prospered under the British, while the
nationalists suffered jails. Post-independence, the top babus—not all, but an
overwhelming majority—have been having a good time: making money,
misusing power, contributing little, taking the country to dogs, and then
blaming the politicians for all the ills, and how they are not allowed to
function! The babus indeed have very low IQ—low Integrity Quotient.
Why have babus been supporters of socialism?
Most of the babus have been supporters of socialism or significant state
controls and regulations, not because they think it would do any good to
India, but because it results in enhancement of their powers and importance
and opens avenues for making money.
To Hell with Primary Responsibilities!
The primary duty of any government is to provide justice to all, ensure
internal and external security, and build infrastructure and institutions of
good governance. Nehru dynasty did the reverse. While it miserably failed
to deliver on all the primary counts, it arrogantly went into business, which
is none of government’s business. It sought to be a trader and an
industrialist—with no qualifications or expertise whatsoever. The generalist
IAS babus salivated at the opportunities for power and pelf. Primary
responsibilities went for a toss.
Babus & the Failure of the Criminal-Justice System
Justice to all? The powerful and the rich and the well-connected can get
away with murder and huge scams and corruption; while the poor—and not
just the poor, anyone bereft of power and right connections—can go to
dogs: the state of the police and the judicial system being what it is.
The kind of criminal-justice system the governments, predominantly run
by the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty since independence, have managed to build is
exemplified by this story that was reported in newspapers in May, 2013. A
poor lady, Vijai Kumari, living in a village in Aligarh district was arrested
and imprisoned, and later granted bail by Allahabad High Court in 1994.
However, she could not fulfil the bail conditions of a personal bond and two
sureties. Nobody came to her help, and she had to stay behind bars. She was
pregnant when arrested. She gave birth to a son in the jail. Her son, whom
she named Kanhaiya, grew up in jail and then in Children’s home. Upon
turning 18, he was sent to a rehabilitation centre. He had received training
in garment manufacturing. With his earning he arranged for a lawyer and
bail amount and finally got his mother released after 19 years! Can a state
and criminal-justice system be more callous?
Babus and the Colonial Culture
Wrote Durga Das about the British bureaucracy in India:
“Financially secure and socially exclusive, the Civil servant and his
wife set about behaving as barons and big landlords did at home, a
battalion of domestics to carry out their slightest behest, the club to
preserve their social prerogatives and the executive authority to
buttress their eminence.”{DD/51}
The brown-sahibs, who took over after independence, followed in their
foot-steps.
Nehru and subsequent governments have done to change the babudom
and make it people-oriented, service-oriented and development-oriented—
they continued with their feudal class consciousness and arrogant ways, ill-
suited to public service. The pre-independence babu culture of living like a
rajah, misusing power, exploiting people, becoming rich at their cost, and
aping the British ways to look cultured, continued, and indeed became
worse with Raj giving way to Nehru-Indira’s licence-permit-quota raj.
Wrote MO Mathai: Members of the Indian Civil Service (ICS) were the
most arrogant and perhaps the most ignorant compared to other services
which they considered as inferior.”{Mac2/L-2927}
How the Babus lord it out
As per 15 October 2013 Times of India, Mumbai news-item ‘2,600 cops
serve in homes of IPS officers in state’ by Prafulla Marpakwar:{URL46}
“...The question now is whether [the government] will withdraw the
2,600-odd police personnel deployed at the residences of 280 IPS
officers across the state [of Maharashtra]... At least seven to 10
constables are deployed at the residence of an Indian Police Service
officer, a senior IPS officer said. If this number is reduced, the state
will get enough policemen to fill up at least 10 to 15 police
stations... [A conscientious] IPS officer said, ‘I am shocked that so
many constables are deployed. Occasionally I feel we are still in the
British Raj...’” The report states that 5 to 9 constables, 3 orderlies, 1
cook, 2-3 telephone runners and 2 drivers are deployed at the
residences of SPs/Commissioners; while 2 to 5 constables, 2-3
orderlies, 2 telephone runners and 2 drivers are deployed at the
residences of other IPS officials. The report continues: “‘Many
officers have even more staffers, depending on their influence. In
Pune, a high-ranking officer in the prisons department had 15-20
constables at his official residence,’ said a senior IPS officer... What
was more shocking, the officer said, was that the staff remained the
same even if the officer were to be shifted to another city, and even
after an officer retired, the police personnel continued to serve him
for a period ranging from three months to a year.”{URL46}
So, while the citizens may remain insecure and crimes against women
may be a growing menace, the IPS babus, like their IAS counterparts, must
lord it out. Which other democratic country in the world would allow such
shamelessness, brazenness, colonial luxuries, feudal lordliness, priority of
services to self over services to people, and utter contempt for the general
public! And, can an abysmally poor country like India where millions go
hungry afford this? Only a feudal, dynastic democracy like India, where
those at the help similarly lord it out in utter contempt and disregard of the
people, can permit such gross insult and indifference to the public!!
Babus care too hoots about their subordinates.
The way the IPS babus allow their subordinates to be treated is
astounding. There are many shocking examples. Here is a sample, a report
in The Indian Express of 11 March 2014 titled No beds or bathrooms at
SRPF’s training base in Mumbai’:
“There are no beds or bathrooms, and the toilet facilities are almost
unusable. About 700 personnel of the State Reserve Police Force are
living in such conditions in the SRPF training base in Mumbai’s
Aarey Milk Colony. They sleep on dirt floors in the barracks...”
Why can’t IPS babus or their associations take up the cause of their
subordinates? Or, are they concerned only with their own luxuries?
Why “Service” attached to their names?
What has the Babudom done—especially the IAS at the top, who ought
to be accountable for it—to transform the state from a callous exploiter to
one that serves citizens. One wonders why that “S for Service” is attached at
the end of IAS, IPS, IFS and IRS, unless it signifies only self-service or
service to their masters. Do they serve the public? Or, do they get served?
Has the Babudom cared to evolve a system that provides incentives and
rewards for desirable behaviour for their fraternity; and penalties for
undesirable behaviour? They can’t just put the blame on the political class.
If they can’t do all this as individuals, they can surely attempt it as a group
—they have their own powerful associations. What do they do?
In the mid-1930s Nehru denounced the ICS—Indian Civil Service—as
neither Indian nor civil nor a service”. He further said it was essential
that the ICS and similar services disappear completely”. Unfortunately,
after independence, with himself in power, such pledges, like other
promises, faded away. The term ‘Indian Administrative Service’ is a
misnomer considering the criminal absence both of “administration” and of
“service” to public.
Attributes of Indian Babudom
The Indian babudom is authoritarian, arrogant, callous, unfair, heartless,
insensitive, ill-mannered, indifferent, incompetent, inefficient, ineffective,
uninnovative, nepotistic, rude, sloppy, sluggish, self-seeking and
shamelessly corrupt. Bureaucracy is now Kleptocracy. The only thing that
partially saves us from the bureaucracy is its inefficiency. Even if
politicians are willing, the babus are incompetent in executing anything
positive or constructive, or delivering reforms on the ground—how can
they, when they are unable to reform themselves?
Wrote Kuldip Nayar in ‘Beyond the Lines’{KN} about the Emergency:
“Only a handful of civil servants stood their ground, others were too
scared to lose their jobs. Some found in it an opportunity to occupy
high positions on the understanding that they would carry out illegal
orders. Sanjay Gandhi converted the civil servants into a servile
breed; the willing tools of tyranny. They have not to this day
recovered from the loss of esteem in the eyes of the public if not
their own. They wield authority, not respect. Their political masters
know that bureaucrats are beholden to them because they are
partners in the loot in which both of them indulge without a twinge
of conscience.”{KN/L-5483}
Are all babus corrupt and incompetent?
Of course, not all babus are bad. It is only 99 percent of babus, as
someone said, who give the rest a bad name! There are a few like Kiran
Bedi who are fighting for better systems. Also, persons like TSR
Subramaniam, the ex-Cabinet Secretary, who has written the book,
Journeys through Babudom and Netaland. It is worth reading.
Babudom and the Metamorphosis of Franz Kafka
Babudom reminds one of Franz Kafka’s Metamorphosis. What if Kafka
was born in India and was witness to post-independence India; and what if
he wrote Metamorphosis in the current Indian context? Would it still have
the undertone of absurdity and alienation, and of a random and chaotic
universe with no governing system of order and justice? Would it still have
Gregor, a travelling salesman, metamorphose into a gigantic insect? Or,
would it rather have the undertone of a crass, callous, corrupt, rusted, unjust
system—all man-made; with Gregor, a babu rather than a travelling
salesman, metamorphose into a gigantic cockroach?
Indian Babudom Independently Evaluated
PERC (Political and Economic Risk Consultancy: www.asiarisk.com)
rates Indian bureaucracy as one of the worst bureaucracies in Asia
responsible for, as an article in The Indian Express, Mumbai of 16 October
2013 states, bottlenecking key policies, widespread red tapism in everyday
affairs, massive corruption, being uninnovative and insensitive, and
harbouring generalist officers who lack expertise.” A report Corruption’s
Impact on the Business Environment for 2013 for Asia-Pacific was
published by PERC. It grades countries on a scale of 10, 0 being the best
and 10 being the worst—most corrupt. Singapore came at the top with a
score of 0.74, Japan and Australia tied at number 2 with a score of 2.35, and
India came at the bottom with a score of 8.95!
What should be done about the Babudom?
The India bureaucratic system is beyond reform. The only remedy is to
dismantle it completely and put up a new system in its place. It is badly in
need of creative destruction.
Should babus be employed post-retirement?
No. Because, the carrot of post-retirement assignment makes them
compromise on their pre-retirement responsibilities. Besides, why let
retirees block available positions. Give those in service a chance. Make way
for the young. In case the retirees are keen to serve the country, let them
come on as honorary advisors, without payment or perks.
For Nation’s Doom: Indians Always in Service (IAS)!
As if their normal service-period is not sufficient to ruin the country, a
large number of retired babus manage a government position in some
establishment or the other, and never really retire. No wonder Indian
Express [IE] in its series of articles in July, 2012 expanded IAS as Indians
Always in Service”. The probability of procuring a confirmed gravy train
ticket”, as IE called it, is predominantly influenced by the extent of one’s
servility to the powers that be.
Although politicians are largely blamed for India’s misery, the babudom
is as much or perhaps more responsible. In fact, political class and
babudom, mainly IAS, have co-opted each other. Politicians can’t amass
wealth, handout favours and perpetuate their rule and that of their dynasty
without the cooperation of the top babus; and the top babus, in turn, can’t
keep getting plump postings, a cut in the moolah and gain indemnity for
their misdeeds without the kind intervention of the politicians. Being a
mutually beneficial combination, the top babus seek and the politicians
facilitate their continuation even after retirement. In expectation of life-long
employment and/or opportunities of making of money, most of the babus
have practically sold their souls to the politicians and are free from all
scruples. They serve not the nation, but the politicians, and in the process,
actually serve themselves.
Why Generalist where Experts Required?
Indian Babudom predominantly harbours generalist with expertise in
nothing except in bottlenecking key policies, holding or pushing files, red-
tapism and corruption. However, thanks to the prevailing system of political
patronage, powerful, pliant, generalist babus have long since expanded their
tentacles to capture not only governorships, but also most of the critical
positions requiring specialist expertise, such as position of RBI governor,
CAG, head of TRAI, CCI, NDMA, CERC, and so on. It is worth noting that
almost all top positions require high-level expertise, and the generalist IAS
(even if they have done some course or taken some training or gained some
little experience just to corner those posts) are gross misfits, because top-
level expertise demands years of focussed work in a particular field, which
the IAS can never gain. IAS therefore has nothing worthwhile to contribute
in those areas, and become mere file-pushers passing their time. Why
shouldn’t the head of TRAI be a telecom expert rather than an IAS babu?
Why should the CAG be from IAS rather than from the Indian Audit and
Accounts Service? Why shouldn’t the RBI governor be an accomplished,
experienced economist (like the current one)—why should he be an IAS
babu? How come the USA manages to have high-level experts from the
concerned fields to head the relevant positions; while in sharp contrast, we
put in the IAS babus as square pegs in round holes in all top positions.
Why is it so? Actually, politicians require compliant people who would
do their bidding; and IAS babus more than meet that requirement. Why take
academic, judicial, social, financial, revenue, security, disaster management,
law-enforcing, business, trade, management, information technology,
telecom or other technical experts from outside to head those positions and
run the unnecessary risk of having honest, conscientious and forthright
persons? IAS babus are safe bets, more so the retired ones begging for
assignments.
With the economic liberalisation post 1991 it was expected that the
bureaucratic stranglehold would loosen. But, sensing the vastly enhanced
scope of making the moolah with the unprecedented expansion of the
economy, the politician-bureaucratic combine ensured that the plethora of
new bodies, especially the regulatory ones that came into being, were
hijacked by the babus. With a nod from the politicians, serving and retired
babus have captured practically all important decision-making bodies. With
IAS babus as heads of regulatory bodies, autonomous, independent, honest,
competent and sane regulation is a chimera. Babudom, as it has existed, is
incapable of delivering, as the experience of over six decades after
independence bears out. There have been some babus who have tried to do
good, but that’s a miniscule percentage and an exception, and even they
could not go very far, as they stood check-mated by the establishment,
including their own colleagues.
An article, ‘Revenge of the Babus’ in India Today of 27 September 2013
states:
“Of the 12 economic regulators created since liberalisation, nine are
headed by retired bureaucrats. Appointments to constitutional
bodies like CAG, Central Vigilance Commission or RBI inevitably
come from their ranks. In 20 states, the chief information
commissioner is the state's former chief secretary. They head human
rights commissions, SC and ST commissions and finance
commissions, and are even part of bodies like the National Disaster
Management Authority (NDMA)... Two decades after liberalisation,
Babu Raj is back as India's only permanent establishment... [For
the] Competition Commission of India (CCI), a new regulatory
body...instituted in 2003... a technocrat was apparently considered
for the job but retired commerce secretary... was picked instead. The
appointment was challenged in a PIL... Then chief justice V.N.
Khare was quoted as saying, ‘At this rate, a day would come, maybe
after 20 years, when the 26 judges of the apex court would be
replaced by bureaucrats.’ [that’s what the corrupt politicians and
babus would love!] ...At the central level, there has been a near-
complete dominance of IAS appointees to head regulatory bodies, a
'regulatory capture'... In the same month that Khullar [former
commerce secretary] was appointed chairman of TRAI, the Federal
Communications Commission in the US appointed two young
commissioners, Ajit Pai and Jessica Rosenworcel. Both had
extensive experience in communications law. So why aren't young
domain specialists heading regulatory bodies in India? ...According
to S.L. Rao, a senior economist who was appointed chairman of the
first CERC in 1998, the top post was kept vacant for 10 months
after his term ended in 2001 so that the incumbent power secretary,
Ashok Basu, could take over the job after his retirement. ...S.L. Rao
explains that part of the reason that electricity regulation hasn't
taken off in the states is that bureaucrats heading the regulators
refuse to take tough decisions on pricing...”
IAS and the like should be banned from all top-level appointments
requiring special expertise; and there are many such areas: Defence,
Education, Electricity, Energy, Environment, Finance, Information
Technology, Mining, Nuclear Energy, Regulatory, RBI, SEBI, Telecom, and
so on. In fact, practically all departments at the top level (not just the top-
most level), except perhaps a few, require high degree of expertise which
can be earned only by almost life-long work in the chosen field.
Should outsiders/experts be inducted?
Yes. Top-level assignments in all categories discussed above must be of
specialists taken from outside. They can be given say a one-month course to
familiarise themselves with the Babugiri, that is, the government working.
IAS-officers may be appointed as their PAs to take care of the nitty-gritty of
administration and file-movement.
Bureaucracy needs to be competent like the Chinese
Most of China’s bureaucrats are engineers, scientists, professionals, and
experts in various fields, who have risen up the hard way—by merit and
performance. Compare that with file-pushing expert-in-nothing babus in
India rising up the ranks on the basis of seniority and chamchagiri. This has
to change. India can’t afford to carry on with its existing Babudom. It has to
drastically change itself and transform into an accountable, innovative,
efficient, meritocratic machine. It has to learn from the Chinese.
To take care of SARS-infected patients in 2003, China built a 1000-bed
hospital in Beijing in just 7 days—excluding, of course, the time for
planning, design, blue-prints and approvals. Using 500 construction
machines, over 4000 construction labourers worked non-stop during April
24–30 to build the giant hospital. It was made operational within days, with
1200 medical staff procured nationwide from military hospitals. Such is the
competence of Chinese managers.
At its fastest growth-period, the US was doubling its living standards
every 30 years; something which China has been doing every 10 years for
the last 30 years! Consequent to a mega annual meeting of Chinese leaders
in Beijing on March 5, Prime Minister Li Keqiang declared the country’s
war on pollution, and the anti-pollution campaign commenced. Do we see
such huge political-neutral initiatives in India.
What takes decades in other countries, China does in mere years. In the
recent past, it extended pension coverage to an extra 240 million (!!) in the
rural area in just two years. Public-pension system in the US, that took
decades, covers lesser numbers!
CORRUPTION IN THE “GOOD” OLD DAYS
What about corruption during the “good” old days of Nehru? Nehru
was, of course, himself honest money-wise. He did keep his hands clean in
money matters; although he did not mind others dirtying their hands to raise
funds for the Congress Party and for other purposes.
There were many cases where Nehru condoned corruption, even if he
was himself honest. Or, defended those accused of it. This tended to make
corruption acceptable. In a way, the foundation of corruption were laid
during Nehru’s time, although, unlike Manmohan Singh, Nehru had almost
unlimited powers to carry through whatever he wanted.
Manmohan Singh and the annoying repetition about him but he is very
honest” is really sickening. You have not been entrusted with the post of the
prime minister to remain only personally honest. Integrity and honesty are
pre-requisites for all jobs—whether that of a house-maid, or a peon, or a
driver, or an IAS officer, or a minister or a PM. All prospects are expected
to have a “good, moral character”. You would not employ a driver if he was
also an expert at siphoning off petrol. You would not employ a housemaid
known for lifting things. You would not employ an accountant knowing he
was corrupt. Integrity and honesty are therefore pre-requisites. Pre-
requisites are one thing, and capabilities another.
Capabilities include competence for the job—qualifications, skills,
experience and so on. The two cannot be mixed, nor can one be substituted
for the other. You cannot have fulfilment of pre-requisites substituting for
capabilities. But, the Congress seems to have elevated the pre-requisites to
the level of capabilities. That is like saying, so what if the driver does not
know driving, or is not good at driving, or drives rashly—he is honest! So,
what he should be good at, he is not, but the fact that he is "very" honest
compensates for all that!
The job of a PM—Nehru or Manmohan Singh—is to ensure that all the
affairs of the state happen in a fair, transparent and honest manner, and with
due competence. That is, all ministers and bureaucrats perform honestly and
competently, failing which necessary action, as per the law, is taken. And,
not—I would look after my limited, direct charge honestly, but what others
do is their business, I am not responsible for it. Such an attitude would
make management even at a lower corporate level, or even at a lower
government level ineffective, what to speak of the prime minister level.
To come to the Nehru era, there were prominent persons then who felt
surprised that Krishna Menon[KM] was being continued as High
Commissioner[HC] in London, when he deserved to be kicked out. KM had
engaged in a number of shady deals for the GoI and the Defence, while in
London as HC: Jeep Scandal was only one of the scandals. Nehru was
informed through various channels of the financial irregularities being
committed by KM, but the PM, as usual, adopted a policy of drift. KM even
managed to convey an impression to Nehru that any attack on him [KM]
was actually an attack on Nehru. Nehru subsequently made KM a Cabinet
Minister despite opposition from many.
Sardar Patel’s correspondence of May 1950 with Nehru brings out
instances where the National Herald (NH) was used as a tool for collecting
money on a quid pro quo basis—awarding government contracts to
undeserving elements. Feroze Gandhi, Nehru’s son-in-law, was then the
General Manager of NH. Nehru was not personally involved, but rather
than putting his foot firmly down on the impropriety, he tended to soft-
paddle the matter, and shield those responsible. It also brings out Sardar
Patel’s high standards of probity in public life.{URL47}
A number of his colleagues and confidants at the Centre and in the
States were not above board, but Nehru ignored their misdemeanours. It
would have been good for the country if Nehru had not done so. A message
should have been sent out that the new, independent India would not
tolerate and spare the corrupt. It would have further enhanced Nehru's
status. To name a few more cases, out of the many, apart from the Jeep
scandal of 1948, there was Mudgal case of 1951, Mundhra deals of 1957-
58, Malaviya Sirajuddin scandal of 1963, Pratap Singh Kairon case of 1963.
Unfortunately, as the years progressed, things became worse, not better.
Mundhra case related to the impropriety of investments by the
government-owned LIC into the companies of a financier-investor Haridas
Mundhra. The then Chief justice MC Chagla constituted the one-man
Tribunal to enquire into the case in 1958. The Tribunal conducted its
proceedings in a thoroughly professional manner, and in public, and
submitted its report in a record time of one month. Nehru, rather than being
appreciative of the exemplary working of the Tribunal (that should have
been followed by subsequent such tribunals/enquiry commissions—but,
were not), and praising and rewarding Chagla for the same, was cross with
him. Why? Tribunal’s findings were adverse, and reflected badly on the
then Finance Minister TTK Krishnamachari. Wrote MC Chagla:
“…Nehru addressed a meeting at the Indian Merchants’ Chamber,
where… he went out of his way to pay a high complement to TTK. I
cannot help remarking that it was hardly proper, when a judicial
inquiry was being held involving the conduct of a Minister, for the
Prime Minister to pay that very Minister [TTK] a compliment in
public…{MCC/210}
“…I know Nehru was very angry with me, and did not hesitate to
show his displeasure. When TTK ultimately resigned, the Prime
Minister went to the airport in person to bid him farewell, a gesture
that was unique in the annals of our parliamentary history… But all
this did not worry me. I had done my work conscientiously, and had
come to my conclusions irrespective of whether they pleased or
displeased the Prime Minister or anyone else…”{MCC/211}
Rajaji was against Nehru's License-Permit-Quota-Raj not only because
it grievously hurt the economy, but also because it was a huge source of
corruption. But, it went unchecked. Remarked Rajaji: Congressmen look
so well off. Have they taken up new avocations and earned money? Then
how have they earned money?{RG3/371}
Rajaji had concluded that it was the socialistic pattern, where the state
controlled, ‘permitted’, and farmed out business that was enriching
Congressmen, officials, and favoured businessmen, and harassing the rest.
This is from ‘The Hindu’ of 9 January 2010, which reproduces what it
had said over 50 years ago in its issue of 9 January 1960:
“Prime Minister Nehru categorically ruled out any proposal for
appointing a high power tribunal to enquire into and investigate
charges of corruption against Ministers or persons in high authority,
for the main reason that, in India, or for that matter any other
country where there was a democratic set-up, he could not see how
such a tribunal could function. The appointment of such a tribunal,
Mr. Nehru felt, would ‘produce an atmosphere of mutual
recrimination, suspicion, condemnation, charges and counter-
charges and pulling each other down, in a way that it would become
impossible for normal administration to function.’ More than half
the time of the Press conference was devoted by Mr. Nehru to deal
with this question of appointing a tribunal to enquire into cases of
corruption as recently urged by India’s former Finance Minister,
Mr C.D.Deshmukh.”{URL27}
A resolution on the ‘standards of public conduct’ at the 1948 Congress
session that exhorted ‘all Congressmen, members of the central and
provincial legislatures and more especially members of the Cabinets… to
set an example and maintain a high standard of conduct’ was accepted by a
majority of 107 against 52. Such a sane and proper resolution was, however,
withdrawn the next day after Nehru threatened to resign, saying the
resolution amounted to censure of his Government.{RNPS/102} One wonders
why the Congress members bent down to an unreasonable demand. Nehru
was certainly not indispensable—he should have been allowed to resign.
Wrote Durga Das:
“…This was the pattern from 1947 to 1951 [stand against
corruption], but he [Nehru] gradually began to acquire a tolerance
for the malpractices of politicians. He thereupon substituted
political expediency for principle in dealing with ministerial
colleagues. Unhesitatingly, he turned a blind eye to a demand by
C.D. Deshmukh for the appointment of a high-power Tribunal to
eradicate corruption when one of the cases listed by him related to
the son of a close colleague.”{DD/382}
That indeed must be a very innovative restriction of democracy! It’s like
saying a Lokpal would subvert democracy and adversely affect
administrative functioning. And Nehru suggests no alternative to curb
corruption!
Swapan Dasgupta recounts an anecdote:
“Subhash Chakravarti, a legendary chief of bureau of The Times of
India, recently recounted an encounter between Prime Minister
Jawaharlal Nehru and the West Bengal Congress supremo Atulya
Ghosh in the early-1960s. ‘I have heard’, Nehru told Ghosh
accusingly, ‘that you are a bit too friendly with Calcutta's Marwari
businessmen’. Never inclined to kowtow to someone he regarded as
a poseur, Ghosh's reply was characteristically blunt: ‘What you have
heard is right. Our party needs money, not merely for Bengal but for
UP and Bihar too. Who do you think funds us? Without that money
you wouldn't be wearing that rose on your lapel.’ Nehru was taken
aback by this insolence and complained to his old friend Dr BC Roy
who was chief minister of West Bengal. Dr Roy laughed it off but
delighted in repeating the story to others...”{SDG}
AD Gorwala, a civil servant, stated in his report to GoI: Quite a few of
Nehru's ministers were corrupt and it was common knowledge”. The
Santhanam committee, appointed by the Government in 1962 to examine
corruption, said:
“There is widespread impression that failure of integrity is not
uncommon among ministers and that some ministers, who have held
office during the last sixteen years, have enriched themselves
illegitimately, obtained good jobs for their sons and relations
through nepotism and have reaped other advantages inconsistent
with any notion of purity in public life.”
Nehru had commented thus on the charges against Pratap Singh Kairon:
“The question thus arises as to whether the chief minister is
compelled to resign because of adverse findings on some questions
of fact by Supreme Court. The ministers are collectively responsible
to the legislature. Therefore, the matter was one which concerned
the assembly. As a rule therefore, the question of removing a
minister would not arise unless the legislature expressed its wish by
a majority vote.” So, even if a minister is corrupt he can’t be
removed, unless voted out! So you can buy immunity by
manipulating or managing votes.
In the case of the Jeep Scandal, the Nehru Government had been brazen
enough to announce in the Parliament that the matter be treated as closed—
something unthinkable in this age of alert media and 24x7 TV News. Even
in the case of Chagla Committee’s probe against TT Krishnamachari, Nehru
tried to defend his minister, rather than appreciating the good job done by
Chagla. When severe allegations were levelled against Kairon by the critics
within the Congress itself, Nehru pooh-poohed them and resisted any
enquiry—Kairon had to ultimately resign following Das Commission’s
findings.
These days Manmohan Singh advances excuse of Coalition “Dharma”
for corruption—as if Congress people are above board—but in the days of
Nehru, Congress was super strong, opposition hardly existed, and Nehru
was an unchallenged leader. Nehru could have easily nipped the malaise of
corruption in the bud, being himself honest and above board. Sadly, he
chose to tolerate it.
Wrote Maria Misra:
“By the early 1960s the Nehruvian project was unravelling. The
third plan was in crisis, agricultural reform had stalled, and grain
output actually declined in 1962-63...inflation was running at 9 per
cent...Congress was confronting a crisis of rising expectations at the
very moment that its own reputation was at its lowest, dogged by
corruption scandals at every level...The culture of corruption...had
begun to penetrate society more deeply. In 1961 the great novelist
R.K. Narayan published Mr Sampath, a grimly comic depiction of a
city milieu. The eponymous anti-hero is shown to be wholly
immersed in fraudulent city life, a liar and an opportunist...Bimal
Roy’s film Parakh (Test, 1960) dealt with similar themes...offering a
scathing satirical attack on venal politicians allied with vested
interests...Nehru’s non-aligned foreign policy was in disarray, his
domestic policy in tatters, and Congress in decline...”{MM/306-7}
The problem of corruption is actually systemic. It is not as if a given
party—Congress or BJP or BSP or SP, et cetera—is more corrupt than the
other; and, by having a change of the party which rules, the corruption
would go away. That is why the stress has to be on institutions—
autonomous regulatory bodies and strong Lokpal; better monitoring and
accountability systems; further liberalisation; elimination of governmental
discretion; police reforms, judicial reforms; administrative reforms and so
on.
The then President of India, Dr Rajendra Prasad had written to Nehru
that corruption will verily prove a nail in the coffin of the Congress.’ For
inquiry into charges of corruption, he strongly advocated the proposal for a
tribunal or an Ombudsman under the President or under an independent
authority, as suggested by C.D. Deshmukh. Rather than replying to the
President’s note in the matter, Nehru chose to complain to him for his
‘unfriendly act’ of sending such a note! Dr Rajendra Prasad wrote to Nehru
on 18 December 1959:
“…I must say that I am somewhat disappointed. The question of
corruption has been too prominently and too long before the public
to brook any further delay in making a probe into it. I think
Deshmukh has given enough details about cases to be traced and
once the Government makes up its mind and gives immunity to
informants against vindictive action, proofs will be forthcoming. I
would therefore suggest that thought be given to finding out cases.
It is not enough that you are satisfied that all is well. A popular
Government’s duty is to give satisfaction to the people also...I have
been worried by your suggestion that I should send for you and
speak to you if I have anything to communicate rather than write. I
am afraid this will stultify me in performing my constitutional
duty...”{AS/15}
What does this mean? Nehru neither wanted to set up an Ombudsman
on corruption nor a tribunal nor did he want the President to put anything in
writing on corruption-related matters? He wanted the President to be
satisfied with his verbal assurance that all was well! Asking for anything
more was an unfriendly act against him! Was he running some personal,
private-limited government?
NEPOTISM IN THE “GOOD” OLD DAYS
Apart from the dynastic streak vis-à-vis Indira, Nehru had a nepotistic
streak. During the Nehruvian era of 1947–64 there were many Pandits,
Saprus, Kauls, Katjus, Dhars, Nehrus, and their kins in various government
posts.
Wrote Neville Maxwell:
“An official (non-Kashmiri, non-Brahmin) who worked closely with
Nehru for a time wrote that enemies of the Prime minister used to
say that his search for talent and gift for talent spotting was limited
to those around him and particularly to Kashmiris, and amongst
them, those who were in one way or another connected with the
Nehru family…”{Max/187}
Wrote MKK Nayar, an IAS officer:{MKN}
“India needed a cadre to do diplomatic work after independence.
The Federal Public Service Commission was vested with the
authority to create it. Kripalani, an ICS officer, headed the
Commission and Grubb, a Tamilian and Puranik, a Maharashtrian
were Members. Youngsters who had the prescribed qualifications
were called for an interview. Based thereon, a list of appointees to
the new cadre (now known as Indian Foreign Service) was
recommended to the Government. Bajpai and others were annoyed
by the list. None of their children or in-laws were in it.
“They therefore sent Nehru a petition that said, ‘We are starting a
new cadre. There is no Indian diplomatic service now. The British
Foreign Office has done the work. When we start a new diplomatic
cadre, youth selected for it must be different from those selected for
other services. The Commission does not have the experience to
select appropriate persons for such a cadre and those recommended
by it are not suitable for us. A Special Committee may be formed to
select appointees to this cadre. The Special Committee should
comprise those who themselves have experience and long service in
diplomacy. For this reason, we feel that the list prepared by the
Commission may be rejected and a new Committee asked to select
the candidates.’
“It is not known whether Nehru considered the repercussions of
doing as recommended. But he accepted it. When Kripalani heard
this, he resigned. Without mentioning any specific reason, he stated
personal inconvenience as his reason for resigning. Bajpai
recommended and Nehru accepted it. Without considering many of
those selected earlier by the Commission, a new Committee
[Special Selection Board] began a new selection. In the
Commission’s list Ram and I were ranked sixteen and eighteen. We
were not considered by the new Committee and we thus lost the
opportunity to enter IFS. There were indeed many ‘able’ persons in
the list prepared by the new Committee—not in scholarly pursuits
but in selecting their brides. The list of those selected was such that
almost everyone was related to someone in high circles. Even
children of Committee members made it into the list. It is
impossible to believe that Nehru was not aware of what was going
on.”{MKN}
Nehru’s Personal Private Secretary M.O. (Mac) Mathai had something
similar to say in his book ‘My Days with Nehru’:
“…The fruits of labour of the Special Selection Board [for foreign
services] left much to be desired. All the members of the Board had
their own favourites and candidates... Many people with the right
connections and some who did not have the minimum educational
qualifications entered the foreign service through the back-door.
Leilaraani Naidu, the second daughter of Sarojini Naidu, was also
taken in. Unlike Ranbir Singh and Mohommad Yunus, she had
ample educational qualifications and teaching experience, but was
thoroughly temperamental and patently unsuitable for any
diplomatic work. She had to be kept in the External Affairs Ministry
throughout her term in the Foreign Service as a lame duck…”{Mac2/L-
2946-51}
{ 3 }
Harvesting Misery,
thanks to Nehruvianism
Forget the West, which is a far cry. Look near home to the countries in
Asia. You observe that many countries which were nowhere near India or
were much behind India at the time India got independence have marched
far ahead of India.
Many countries, including those in Southeast Asia, which were much
behind India at the time India got independence, marched far ahead of
India. When you look at their airports, their roads, their metros, their city-
buses, their well laid-out cities, their infra-structure, their cleanliness, their
everything, you wonder why you have remained a country of crumbling
roads, overcrowded locals, overhanging scary ugly mess of mesh of
electrical, TV and internet cables blotting the skyline and brutally assaulting
even the “chalta hai” sense of terribly intolerable tolerance of the “have
given up” generations; a country of absent pavements or encroached
pavements or pavements that stink from the use they are not meant for, and
where mercifully for the walkers this is not so, they are but patches of
broken down pavers, punctuated by uncovered, or partially covered, or
precariously or deceptively covered man-holes, awaiting their catch; a
nation of stinking slums and impoverished villages, open drains and sewers,
rotting garbage, squalor and stink all around, children and men defecating
by the road-side—all testimony to criminal absence of the very basics of
being civilised...
Most of the Indian towns, cities and metros are dirty, foul smelling and
hideous. They look like a defacement of spaces and a blot on the landscape.
Cities in the West, Southeast Asia, China and elsewhere get better, cleaner,
smarter and spiffier year after year, while ours get worse, more congested,
more difficult to live in and more squalid.
How's it that we got so left behind? What is it that we did, or did not do,
after independence, that everything is so abysmal and pathetic? And all this
unmitigated misery despite the overwhelming advantage of India as a
nation with first-rate people, plentiful natural resources, grand civilisational
heritage, rich culture and languages, unmatched ethical and spiritual
traditions, and, above all, relatively better position in all fields—
infrastructure, trained manpower, bureaucracy, army—at the time of
independence compared to all other nations who have since overtaken us.
Why did we fail to leverage such rich assets of a gifted country? Lee Kuan
Yew (LKY) of Singapore took his nation from a poor, third-world nation,
with no natural resources (not even drinking water!), to a first-world nation
within mere 20 years. Park Chung-Hee of South Korea took his poor,
pathetic country—amongst the world’s poorest, poorer than India—and
placed it on an automatic path to the first-world status: today it is a rich,
gleaming, confident country that would leave many advanced first-world
western countries behind.
Sample Illustrative Statistics
Figures and statistics below are from the year 2013 or earlier,
as the first edition of this book was published in 2013. Many
aspects are gradually on the improve since, and hopefully things
would show a marked relative improvement by the end of this
decade, and would be in a better shape by 2024.
Worldwide rankings for 2012 by the Mercer Quality of Living Survey
lists 49 cities. No Indian city makes the grade. Mercer City Infrastructure
Ranking, 2012 lists 50 cities. No Indian city appears in the list.
As per the Cities of Opportunity 2012 report of
PricewaterhouseCoopers, Mumbai is considered to be the worst city to live
in. The report ranked 27 cities across the world based on variables such as
cultural vibrancy, quality of living, working age population and traffic
congestion.
Among the prominent cities in the world, the 25 dirtiest include New
Delhi and Mumbai having mostly the African cities for company.
Two cities in India, Sukinda and Vapi, rank 3rd and 4th in the world as the
most polluted cities!
Even our water bodies and rivers, including the most sacred ones, get
dirtier by the year. The sacred rivers have been reduced to sewers. The
waters of the Ganga are pure and sparkling when it starts from Gangotri,
with a BOD, that is, Biochemical Oxygen Demand, of zero, and a DO,
Dissolved Oxygen, of over 10. Water with BOD level of less than 2mg per
litre can be consumed without treatment; that with BOD level between 2
and 3 mg per litre can be consumed, but only after treatment; and that with
BOD level above 3 mg per litre is unfit even for bathing. Ganga-Yamuna
water at Sangam in Allahabad has a BOD level of 7.3 mg per litre! It is
totally unfit even for bathing!! Such is the state of affairs even after
spending more than rupees 8,000 crores over the years on various schemes
to clean the Ganga-Yamuna waters. Where does all the money go?
Reportedly, over 10 million took a dip in the Sangam this Kumbh—in
waters far, far more polluted than the level that make it unfit even for
bathing! Politicians of all hues lined up there for the sake of votes—both
the Congress politicians whose crime it has been to not have cleaned up the
waters, and the opposition politicians who have failed to force the
government to do the needful.
To summarise a ToI report, "A pitcherful of poison: India's water woes
set to get worse", India ranks third-lowest, a lowly 120, in a list of 122
countries rated on quality of potable water. By 2020, India is likely to
become a water-stressed nation. Nearly 50% of Indian villages still do not
have any source of protected drinking water. Of the 1.42 million villages in
India, 1.95 lacs are affected by chemical contamination of water. 37.7
million are afflicted by waterborne diseases every year. Nearly 66 million
people in 20 Indian states are at risk because of excessive fluoride in their
water. Nearly 6 million children below 14 suffer from dental, skeletal and
non-skeletal fluorosis. In Jhabua district, bone deformities are common
among children. Arsenic is the other big killer lurking in ground water,
putting at risk nearly 10 million people. The problem is acute in several
districts of West Bengal. The deeper aquifers in the entire Gangetic plains
contain arsenic. In UP's Ballia district, the problem is so acute that almost
every family has been affected—most people are suffering from skin rashes,
some have lost their limbs; many are dying a slow death due to arsenic-
induced cancer. Bacteriological contamination, which leads to diarrhoea,
cholera and hepatitis, is most widespread in India.
We have the largest number of poor—a third of the world's poor! As per
the World Bank’s estimate for 2011, while 69% Indians live on less
than US$2 per day, 33% fall below the international poverty
line of US$1.25 per day.
In terms of GDP per capita, India stands at 129 among 183 countries as
per IMF tabulation for 2011. Per capita income in India is little more than
half that of Sri Lanka, about a sixth that of Malaysia, and a third that of
Jamaica.
Says Darryl D’Monte in an article, ‘Living off the land’, that appeared
in the Hindustan Times of 7 August 2012: “In 2010, Oxford University and
the UN Development Programme brought out a Multidimensional Poverty
Index or MPI which replaced the Human Poverty Index. The researchers
analysed data from 104 countries with a combined population of 5.2 billion,
constituting 78% of the world’s total. It found that about 1.7 billion people
in these countries live in multidimensional poverty. If income alone is taken
into account, at less than $1.25 a day, a standard measure throughout the
world, this amounts to 1.3 billion. The startling fact that emerges from this
analysis, which made headlines throughout the world, is that using the MPI,
just eight Indian states have more poor people than the 26 poorest African
countries combined. These sub-Saharan countries—like Ethiopia—are
considered the worst-off in the world, with pictures of starving children
there becoming symptomatic of a deep malaise.”
The Legatum Prosperity Index ranks countries based on a mix of
parameters that include economy, entrepreneurship and opportunity,
governance, education, health, safety and security, personal freedom, and
social capital. For 2012, India ranks 101 among 142 countries. Countries
like Algeria, Bosnia, Armenia, Albania, Ghana, Lebanon, Sri Lanka were
ahead of India!
Things are so pathetic even after over six decades of independence,
ruled predominantly by the Nehru Dynasty, that while the politicians and
babus and businessmen have stashed away millions in black money here
and abroad, handouts of mere 100 days of subsistence wages per poor rural
household—not even per person—under the MNREGA, the Mahatma
Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, or meagre cash
transfers in lieu of subsidies in kind are considered “game changers”,
something that can fetch votes for the descendants of the Nehru-Gandhi
clan! Such is the level of destitution, thanks to their gross misgovernance
and policies that are effectively anti-poor! Forget about providing steady
monthly income, even if measly, and a stable employment even after more
than 60 years of independence, we can’t even provide 100 days of manual
work per needy rural adult!
The HDI, Human Development Index, is a composite statistic of life
expectancy, education, and income indices and was published by the UNDP,
United Nations Development Programme. In 2011, India ranked 134 on
HDI among 187 countries, below even Iraq and Egypt!
The Hunger and Malnutrition (HUNGaMA) report by the Naandi
Foundation points out that 42 per cent of under-fives Indian children are
severely or moderately underweight and that 59 per cent of them suffer
from moderate to severe stunting.
The Global Hunger Index (GHI) computed each year by the
International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) is designed to
comprehensively measure and track hunger globally and by country and
region. If you look at the GHI global colour map displayed at the IFPRI
web-site, you find only India and certain countries in Africa are painted
dark yellow indicating the status as “alarming”! India ranks 15th among 57
nations ranked (those who have eliminated hunger—and there are many—
are not included in the list), rank-1 being the worst-case. That is, out of 57
nations still afflicted, 14 are worse than India and 42 are better off than
India. Even countries like Sudan, Pakistan, Cambodia, North Korea,
Zimbabwe, Uganda, Nigeria are much better than India!
As per another study released on Mothers Day, India ranks 76th among
80 “less developed countries” in the world on Mother-care Index, that is 5th
worst.
Health-care system—we beat even the poorest countries in Africa in
infant mortality rates! The rate is a measure of number of deaths of infants
under one year old in a given year per 1,000 live births. Among 221
countries, India ranks 50—rank 1 being the worst—with an infant mortality
rate of 46. That is, among 221 countries, 171 countries are better off than
India. China’s infant mortality rate is 15.62, Singapore’s 2.65, while India’s
is 46.07. Over 400,000 newborns die within the first 24 hours of their birth
every year in India, the highest anywhere in the world, a study by an
international non-government organisation, “Save the Children”, has
declared.
Take MMR, the Maternal Mortality Rate, which is the annual number of
female deaths per 100,000 live births from any cause related to or
aggravated by pregnancy or its management. The MMR includes deaths
during pregnancy, childbirth, or within 42 days of termination of pregnancy.
India ranks 52—rank 1 being the worst—among 183 countries, with an
MMR of 200 deaths per 100,000 live births. MMR is 37 for China and just
3 for Singapore.
Quality of life for women? India is at the bottom or near the bottom of
the heap. India ranked 134 out of 187 countries in terms of women’s well-
being as per a UN index of 2011!
Then there are those aspects that don’t make headlines or that are not
indexed or ranked or widely taken cognizance of—early marriage and
motherhood that kills aspirations, forces young girls to play the onerous
roles of wife and mother, making hell of their young lives and condemning
them to life-long drudgery. As per 17 April 2013 report of The Times of
India, Mumbai, India has the largest number of child brides in the world:
47% of girls are married off below the legal age of 18—that’s almost half!
The Indian Express, Mumbai of 18 July 2013 reports that in eight states of
India over half the women are married as children. The shocking figures are
64% for Bihar, 60% for Jharkhand, 58% for Rajasthan, 56% for Andhra
Pradesh, and so on.
As per The Times of India, Mumbai of 14 October 2013: “India, the
world’s child marriage capital, has once again failed its underage brides.
The country has refused to sign the first-ever UN-led global resolution on
early and forced marriage of children." 107 countries have supported the
resolution, including even countries like Ethiopia, South Sudan, Sierra
Leone, Chad, Guatemala, Honduras and Yemen—but not India! Continues
ToI: “India has the record of having the highest absolute number of child
brides: about 24 million. This represents 40% of the world’s 60 million
child marriages. The percentage of women between the ages of 20 and 24,
who were married before 18 years of age, has decreased from 54% in 1992-
93 to 43% in 2007-08, thus showing a reduction of 11% in 15 years. The
improvement though is far too little, experts say.” Says The Centre for
Reproductive Rights as quoted in ToI: “Child marriage does not constitute a
single rights violation—rather, every instance of child marriage triggers a
continuum of violations that continues throughout a girl’s life. Further,
women and girls married as children are often denied educational
opportunities, are isolated from society and face a lifetime of economic
dependence.”
The insecurity faced by half the population of India given our pathetic
record of violence against women is alarming! This insecurity does not just
affect women in India, it severely affects inflow of international tourists and
hence the economy. India earns merely USD 8 billion in tourism compared
to USD 54 billion by France and USD 49 billion by China! It affects
employment too, for tourism is a labour intensive industry. According to the
World Economic Forum, tourism accounts for nine per cent of global gross
domestic product and is projected to represent one in every 10 jobs by
2022.
Talking of security of women and tourists, well, security has been
usurped by the VIPs and VVIPs! As per a newspaper report, 61% of the
Mumbai's 46,000-strong police force has been assigned the job of
protecting VIPs and VVIPs, a whopping 1,184 per cent jump in deployment
since 2007! As per another newspaper report, in Delhi, out of a sanctioned
force of 83,000, only 30% is deployed for general public!! What does this
show? Utter selfishness of the politicians and their total apathy and
contempt for the public.
Note the violence against the Dalits. Don’t they need security too! News
headlines such as “Dalit boy beaten to death for...”, “Dalit tortured by
cops...”, “Dalit 'witch' paraded naked in...”, “Dalit killed in lock-up at...”,
“...Dalits burnt alive in caste clash”, “Dalit huts burned down in...”,
“...Dalits lynched in ...”, “Dalit woman gang-raped, paraded naked” are
common place. The daily humiliation heaped upon the Dalits even after
over six decades of independence is alarming! At many places Dalits are
not allowed to drink from the same wells, attend the same temples, or drink
from the same cups in tea stalls. As per a report, 85% of the Dalit women
have the most arduous occupations and work as agricultural labourers,
scavengers, sweepers, and disposers of human waste. Many of them are
forced to work for minimum wages, and when they refuse, they face open
violence, humiliation, beatings, rape, and jail.
Then, there are the so-called natural disasters. Many of them are largely
man-made. They happen year after year. There are little efforts to prevent or
minimise them, and organised disaster management is non-existent. Floods,
and consequent loss, destruction and displacements in Assam and Bihar are
an annual affair affecting lacs of poor, yet no permanent solution has been
evolved in the last six decades. You had 26/7 in Mumbai, yet little has been
done since that can testify that lessons have been learnt. Now, you have
June-2013 in Uttarakhand! That too would be forgotten after some time.
Life in India is indeed cheap! We don’t prevent disasters from happening,
we facilitate them—through our careless, faulty planning, or just plain
callous lack of any planning.
The status of the shelter homes for women and children, and hostels for
Dalits and Adivasis is pathetic. So many horrid reports appear on TV and in
the newspapers from time to time. There is nothing that our babus cannot
mismanage. The latest is on the juvenile homes in the context of the
Nirbhaya case in the Times of India of 4 February 2013 titled, “Drugs, sex
abuse of kids rampant at juvenile homes”.
Writes Kuldip Nayar of a shocking case he witnessed when he was
jailed during the Emergency in 1975—not that things have since changed
for the better, though some action was taken following the highlighting of
the matter by Shri Nayar:
“The drudgery of jail was nerve-wracking. The long day was
followed by a long night. One night I was awoken by the noise of
children not far from where I was sleeping. To my horror I
discovered a barred cell with bolted doors in which there were
scores of boys crying loudly. I spoke to a few to find out why they
were there but couldn’t make any head or tail of what they said. In
the morning I found the cell empty. I asked the warden about the
boys. He laughed at my inquiry. The boys, he said, had been in
prison for years, without trial. They were not registered when they
were brought in. They were picked up from the roadside to be used
as helpers. Their number rose when there were more prisoners. Very
few boys were released because they were needed in one jail or
another in the country and were transferred wherever the need arose.
The warden told me that some of them had been there for six to
seven years. As they came from poor families, they were not easily
returned...”
As per a report titled “Haryana cops raped us: Children's home inmates”
of 6 June 2012 in The Indian Express: “Inmates of the Apna Ghar shelter in
Rohtak told a four-member committee that visited them today that they
were gangraped by Haryana Police officials, who made them dance naked
and forcibly took them out of the home.”
If you go through the reports on the juvenile homes, shelters for women
and children, and hostels for Dalits and Adivasis, you feel that if there were
to be an Indian Charles Dickens or Charlotte Brontë, they could write real-
life stories that would make David Copperfield, Oliver Twist or Jane Eyre
appear like fairy tales in comparison. India of the 21st-century is competing
with England of the 19th-century!
The fate of the aged is no better. India happens to be among the worst
countries to grow old in. Global AgeWatch Index 2013
(www.helpage.org/global-agewatch) ranks India at 73 out of 91 countries it
studied. India has the dubious distinction of being far below Brazil at rank
31, China at 35, Sri Lanka at 36, Philippines at 44, and Vietnam at 53.
India’s overall score is 35 compared to the massive score of 89.9 of Sweden
at rank 1. Almost 90% of the Indian elderly of about 100 million have to
continue to work to survive.
The Global Slavery Index 2013 report (available on the web) published
by the Australia-based rights organisation Walk Free Foundation (‘Walk
Free’), committed to ending all forms of modern slavery by mobilising
global activist movements, generating highest quality research, enlisting
businesses, raising funds and driving changes, includes slavery and slavery-
like practices—debt bondage, forced marriage, sale or exploitation of
children, human trafficking and forced labour, and other practices described
in key international treaties, voluntarily ratified by nearly every country in
the world—under Modern Slavery. As per the report, which surveyed 162
nations, of the 30 million across the world living in conditions of modern-
day slavery, nearly half (14 million) are in India! Following far behind India
at 14 million are China at 2.9, Pakistan at 2.1, Nigeria at 0.7, Ethiopia at
0.65, Russia at 0.51, Thailand at 0.47 million, and so on.
The Dynasty-driven Nehruvian-socialistic-populist-babudom-dominated
India rarely disappoints in scoring the top grade—when it comes to the
negatives.
Take housing. Government’s recent housing survey reveals that 53% of
Indian homes are without toilets, 68% are without access to clean tap water,
39% do not have indoor kitchens, and 70% make do with one or two room
homes. Figures don’t reveal the real horror. Of course, all—men, women
and children—suffer; but, the main sufferers are women: having to defecate
in the open in the absence of toilets, having to fetch water in the absence of
tap-water at home, having to cook without a kitchen!
There are nearly 97 million urban poor living in 50,000 slums in India,
24% of which are located along nallahs and drains and 12% along railway
lines. And, thanks to our lack of planning and neglect, the number of slums
and the slum population is on the rise. The worst affected are the children—
our future—in these slums.
By 2020 the average age of the Indian population would be 29, in
comparison to 37, 45 and 48 for China, Western Europe and USA
respectively. We would be the youngest nation! There have been talks of
India reaping the demographic dividend to become rich and powerful. But,
would merely being young yield the dividends? Given the way we are
“caring for”, “cultivating”, “educating” and “training” the young, rather
than converting this demographic dividend into social and economic
dividend, we would most likely have a huge demographic liability upon us,
as the current dismal statistics show. As per Tehelka issue of 20 April 2013,
20% of children have low birth weight; over 40% are underweight and
stunted; 70% of children below five are anaemic; only 43% of children
below two receive all their immunisation—compared to 90% in
Bangladesh. Of the 27 million children who enrol annually in primary
schools only 5.4 million, that is, only 20%, make it to class XII.
Singapore and Finland recruit teachers in schools from among the
brightest 10% of graduates and offer them salaries on par with engineers.
And, in India?
Quality of graduates from engineering and management colleges is so
poor many remain unemployable. Our education system—it is a mess. In
literacy, India is 183 among 214 countries—below many African countries.
Reports The Economic Times of 18 January 2013: “The Annual Status of
Education Report (ASER 2012) by NGO Pratham shows that the number of
Class V students who could not read a Class II level text or solve a simple
arithmetic problem has increased. In 2010, 46.3% of kids in this category
failed to make the cut and this shot up to 51.8% in 2011 and 53.2% in
2012...In 2010, 29.1% children in Class V could not solve a two-digit
subtraction problem without seeking help. This proportion increased to 39%
in 2011 and 46.5% in 2012.”
Not a single Indian university or institute of higher learning, including
the premier IITs, figure in the top 200 universities of the world, listed by the
QS World Rankings 2012! The only ones close to the best are IIT-Delhi at
212, IIT-Mumbai at 227 and IIT-Kanpur at 278. India remains the only
BRICS nation without a university in the top 200.
The latest “Doing Business” Report of the World Bank for June 2013
ranks 189 countries on various ease of doing business parameters, rank 1
being for the country with the most conducive environment for business.
The report is available @ www.doingbusiness.org. As per the report, the
overall ranking of India is 134. Singapore is at number 1, USA at 4, and
even countries like Azerbaijan are ahead of India at 70, Mongolia at 76, Sri
Lanka at 85, Vietnam at 99, and Pakistan at 110! The report also gives 10
sub-rankings like for ease of “starting a business”, “enforcing contracts”,
“dealing with construction permits”, etc. India ranks shockingly low at 179
(11th from the bottom) on “ease of starting a business”, 182 (8th from the
bottom) on “ease of dealing with construction permits” and 186 (4th from
the bottom) on “ease of enforcing contracts”. Why so? Pathetic,
incompetent political management, governance and babudom, and all-
pervading corruption.
Thanks to our corrupt and shameless babudom and politicians, we have
now reached a stage that the little check (vis-a-vis at least foreign
companies and investments from the UK and the US) that would be on our
corruption would be thanks to foreign laws and their strict implementation
by foreign countries. In so far as we are concerned, we would not only not
do anything effective against corruption, we would continue to throttle
messengers and civil-society do-gooders like Team-Anna, and even co-opt a
section of the media in ‘national interest’ to deride and ridicule them.
In the Hindustan Times report of 6 March 2013, “An unlettered
revolution in the hills”, two things simultaneously strike you? First, the
daring of an unlettered woman, Kalavati Devi Rawat, from a poor family in
Bacher, a remote village in Chamoli district of Uttarakhand, taking on the
dangerous forest mafia out to destroy the forests of Bacher, and taming the
out-of-control alcoholics—who, for their thirst for alcohol, were helping the
mafia—in the brutally male-dominated hill society of the mountain village.
The second thing that strikes you is: where is the government and the
administration? While a poor lady must risk her life, those actually
responsible openly collude with the mafia! This is the India of the 21st
century!!
The unprecedented June-2013 floods and disaster tragedy in
Uttarakhand is no small measure thanks to such reckless and mafia-driven
deforestation and indiscriminate construction of dams and other structures.
The internal security situation is alarming. You are unable to tackle the
unrest and the insurgency in the northeast and in Kashmir. On top of it, the
red corridor now straddles nine states—106 of the total of about 600
districts, that is, about 18%, are worst-affected! Why? Because the tribal
districts were neglected and left to fend for themselves since independence.
Nobody bothered about them. They were ungoverned. If an interest was
shown about them, that was only from the mining angle. When now
questioned, it is claimed that one is unable to develop them on account of
the Maoists. Well, were Maoists calling the shots there right since
independence? Further, are other tribal areas that are free from Maoists
witnessing progress and development?
Further, it is not just tribal areas that are neglected and ungoverned.
There are vast swathes of countryside and small towns in UP, Bihar and
many other states that are hopeless, depressing, lawless, dangerous
Omkaralands.
Global Peace Index (GPI) is based on 22 qualitative and quantitative
parameters to rank level of violence or peace in the society. Rank 1 means
most peaceful and least violent. GPI for 2013 ranks 162 nations. India
comes way below, almost at the bottom, at 141.
Writes The Economist of 29 June 2013 in one of its book reviews titled,
‘Why the world’s biggest democracy still fails too many of its people’: “AS
A conundrum it could hardly be bigger. Six decades of laudably fair
elections, a free press, rule of law and much else should have delivered
rulers who are responsive to the ruled. India’s development record,
however, is worse than poor. It is host to some of the world’s worst failures
in health and education. If democracy works there, why are so many Indian
lives still so wretched? Social indicators leave that in no doubt. A massive
blackout last summer caught global attention, yet 400m Indians had (and
still have) no electricity. Sanitation and public hygiene are awful, especially
in the north: half of all Indians still defecate in the open, resulting in many
deaths from diarrhoea and encephalitis...Twice as many Indian children
(43%) as African ones go hungry. Many adults, especially women, are also
undernourished... Compared even with its poorer neighbours, Bangladesh
and Nepal, India’s social record is unusually grim...State-provided
education, too, is in a shocking state. One survey of state schools in seven
big northern states found no teaching activity in half of them. But sacking a
teacher in India is hard. Teachers are well paid and many new schools have
been built. Yet quality of instruction, the authors say, remains generally
‘horrifying’. Even the poor prefer private tuition; at least the teachers show
up...”
Our external security has been bleeding us thanks to no border
agreements with our two major neighbours. Our internal security with the
huge expansion of the red corridor, worsening problems in the northeast and
J&K, and growing jehadi terrorism has been getting more and more
precarious.
~~~
Look at anything—nothing makes you feel good. The only good thing
is, one is told: it could have been worse! We are told that the economy is
now much better thanks to the Narsimha Rao-led period; that it was much
worse before; and had pre-Narsimha Rao status continued, the scenario
would have been much more horrifying! How's it that we got so left
behind? What is it that we did, or did not do, after independence, that
everything is so abysmal and pathetic?
We are told we had truly great leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira
Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi who lead us respectively for 17, 16 and 7 years
after independence—a total of 40 long years! And, all the three were
awarded Bharat Ratnas for leading India “capably”. It is claimed they also
laid the foundation for a “strong” India. But, the puzzle is: How is it that
such great leaders could do no better than make India one of the poorest
countries on earth? How is it that we had such great leaders, who laid such
“strong” foundations, and yet India remained in dark to semi-dark ages?
Why an overwhelming majority in India is condemned to continue in
misery? What are the foundations of this misery? This is what this two-part
book seeks to enquire.
{ 4 }
Internal Policies
MISMANAGEMENT & NEGLECT OF THE NORTHEAST
NORTHEAST THANKS TO BORDOLOI
When we talk of the Northeast we must first pay our tributes to
Gopinath Bordoloi but for whom Assam and the Northeast may not have
been part of India.
People often do not appreciate that one of the reasons that a state like
Assam is in India today is due to the courageous stand of Gopinath
Bordoloi, the first Chief Minister of Assam, who fought the Muslim
League’s effort to include Assam and other parts of the North-East Region
(NER) in East Pakistan. The Congress Party at the national level, led by
Nehru, would have acquiesced to the Muslim League had it not been for a
revolt by Bordoloi, backed by the Assam unit of the Congress Party and
supported by Mahatma Gandhi and the Assamese public.
—Sanjoy Hazarika in his book "Writing on the wall"{SH/11}
The initial British Plan of 1946 for the Indian Independence clubbed
Assam and Bengal together in Group-C. Such an inclusion would have had
the consequence of Assamese being in a minority, to be overruled into
ultimately being absorbed in East-Pakistan. Sensing this ominous
possibility, Bordoloi opposed being clubbed into Group-C, contrary to what
Nehru had agreed to. With Nehru remaining unamenable, Bordoloi started
mass agitation. He fought the Muslim League’s effort to include Assam and
other parts of the Northeast Region (NER) in East Pakistan. The Congress
at the national level, led by Nehru, would have acquiesced to the Muslim
League had it not been for a revolt by Bordoloi, backed by the Assam unit
of the Congress Party and supported by Mahatma Gandhi and the Assamese
public.
MIGRATION POLITICS
Among the biggest problems of the Northeast is the problem of the
migrants. With the annexation of Assam by the British in 1826, British
brought in the peasantry from over-populated East-Bengal, now Bangla
Desh, for tea plantation and other purposes. The All India Muslim League
(AIML), in order to improve its strength in the predominantly non-Muslim
Assam, strategized back in 1906 in its conference at Dacca to increase the
Muslim population in Assam, and exhorted the East-Bengal Muslims to
migrate and settle in Assam. The fact of large-scale migration was also
noted in the Census report of 1931. Congress leaders Bardolai, Medhi and
others raised this serious issue of migration, but did not get due support
from the Congress leadership at the Centre. Even after Independence, when
the Central Government could have taken a tough stand and effectively
dealt with the problem, it remained ostrich-like, and demographic invasion
from East-Pakistan continued, becoming a major source of ethnic bitterness
and tension. The ongoing Bodo-Bangladeshi Muslim clash is an offshoot of
this bitterness.
Writes Kuldip Nayar:
“The state subsequently paid the price...when illegal migration from
the then East Pakistan reduced the Assamese-speaking population in
Assam to a minority... It was not Chaliha who initiated the issue of
illegal migration but his senior in the Congress, Fakhruddin Ali
Ahmad, who rose to be India’s president. In fact, the entire party
was guilty. Its simplistic solution was to win elections in Assam by
allowing would-be settlers from across the border into the state thus
creating a vote bank...[Gobind Ballabh]Pant [the then Home
Minister in Nehru’s cabinet] knew that large number of people were
coming across the border. After all, his party had connived at the
migration since independence...”{KN}
The problems of the Northeast have their roots in the Nehruvian era on
account of faulty understanding of the issues, distorted world view,
defective grasp of national security interests, and the faulty policies and
remedies that flowed from them. Nehru, thanks to his policies, managed to
make all our international borders and the regions in the border areas
sensitive and insecure, costing us a fortune to maintain them. Nehru could
have and should have put in place a reliable and robust mechanism to plug
the migrations from East-Pakistan after Independence; but he remained
casual and indifferent.
TOO MANY STATES!
Nehru’s policy of division of Assam into a number of smaller states to
satisfy certain ethnic groups has actually been counter-productive. One,
because there are so many different ethnicities—over 220 ethnic groups. To
what extent can one keep dividing? Two, it started divisive identity politics.
Others too have raised their demand for separation. Three, such small states
are not economically viable.
Egged on by Verrier Elwin, Nehru’s advisor on tribal matters and a
British missionary and anthropologist, Nehru’s broad policy was to treat
Nagas and the like as “anthropological specimen”. This came in the way of
development and integration of the Northeast.
Looking to the fact of scores of ethnic groups and languages in the
Northeast, Nehru should have understood that sub-dividing the region into
multiple states would be an endless process that would give rise to further
divisiveness, without doing any good for the people at large, each new state
being economically unviable. What would have won the hearts of the
people and brought them into the mainstream would have been not a State
for each group, for that benefits only the elites; but solid, good, empathetic
governance, effective criminal-justice system, assurance of security to
people, delivery of services, education, health-care, providing connectivity
and communications, putting in place adequate infrastructure, and
economic development.
But, that requires dedicated, committed, competent, empathetic and
honest human resources, ensuring which should have been the top-priority
task of independent India. But, no. The arrogant, callous, selfish, self-
serving, exploitive, rent-seeking, corrupt, anti-people babudom and the
criminal-justice system continued, and rather than being replaced or
reformed, became worse and vicious.
GROSS MISMANAGEMENT
Wrote MKK Nair: “Nehru and Patel did not agree on many issues and
Patel used to point out shortcomings in Nehru’s approaches to him. Almost
everyone knows that the problems of North East India began with Nehru’s
policy. Patel had vehemently opposed Nehru’s plan to administer North
Eastern Region under the Foreign Ministry and differentiate it from the rest
of India. He explained the repercussions of such a step, but there was no
one in the cabinet to oppose Nehru. When implemented, it became easy for
Christian missionaries to tell local people that they were not Indians and
theirs was another country because India’s Foreign Ministry dealt with it.
Nehru created a new cadre, Indian Frontier Administrative Service, to
administer the region but selection was like for Indian Foreign Service.
However, except for one or two exceptions, everyone chosen was
incompetent and did not have the required administrative calibre. Their
clumsy rule and the worse control by the Foreign Ministry were causes for
anti-national activities to flourish in Nagaland, Mizoram, Manipur and hill
areas of Assam.”{MKN}
REORGANISATION OF STATES
In India, distinct geographical areas have their own distinct language;
and associated with them a distinct set of culture, customs, dresses, music,
dance, arts, literature and so on. Indian freedom fighters, except perhaps the
anglicised-set that included Nehru, were deeply aware of the love and
attachment of the people to their mother-tongues and the associated culture,
and its power in harnessing them to the cause of freedom; because political
freedom would also have meant freedom from English and colonial culture,
and its replacement by their mother-tongue and their culture.
It was therefore natural for the leaders of the Indian Independence
movements to have worked out back in the beginning of the twentieth
century itself that upon independence India should be reorganised along the
lines of the major languages so that the people of the concerned regions
could fulfil their aspirations, and their language and culture flowers. The
Congress Party had committed itself to this way back in 1917. In the
constitution that was framed by the Congress under the inspiration and
guidance of Mahatma Gandhi, India was divided into provinces, with
headquarters and language as follows:
Province (Headquarters): Language
(1) Ajmere-Merwara (Ajmer): Hindustani
(2) Andhra (Madras): Telegu
(3) Assam (Gauhati): Assamese
(4) Bihar (Patna): Hindustani
(5) Bengal (Calcutta): Bengali
(6) Bombay City (Bombay): Marathi-Gujarati
(7) Delhi (Delhi): Hindustani
(8) Gujarat (Ahmedabad): Gujarati
(9) Karnatak (Dharwar): Kannada
(10) Kerala (Calicut): Malayalam
(11) Mahakosal (Jabalpur): Hindustani
(12) Maharashtra (Poona): Marathi
(13) Nagpur (Nagpur): Marathi
(14) NWFP (Peshawar): Pushtu
(15) Punjab (Lahore): Punjabi
(16) Sind (Karachi): Sindhi
(17) Tamil Nadu (Madras): Tamil
(18) United Provinces (Lucknow): Hindustani
(19) Utkal (Cuttack): Oriya
(20) Vidarbha-Berar (Akola): Marathi
Even Provincial Congress Committees (PCCs ) were as per the
linguistic zones, like Orissa PCC, Karnataka PCC, and so on. All the
leaders of the independence movement from different regions and language
areas were agreeable on this—there were no two opinions.
No one thought it would be divisive in nature and a threat to the national
unity. That there were distinct languages and cultures was a fact on the
ground; and if that meant divisive tendencies, then that would have been
there whether or not separate states were carved on that basis. On the
contrary, by not carving out the states as per the major-language regions,
there was a good possibility of dissatisfaction, frustration, anger and
mischief leading to bad blood among people and divisive tendencies.
Those who were close to the ground and genuinely understood India
knew that what held India together through thousands of years and through
trying times was the overarching culture of broad Hinduism and associated
religions that evolved in the Indian soil like Jainism, Buddhism and
Sikhism. This unique Indian combination cut across languages and local
cultures and stitched together the larger entity, Bharat Varsh.
However, in the wake of partition, the division of India on the Hindu-
Muslim religious lines was extrapolated to include possible future divisions
on linguistic lines, and a needless fear psychosis developed. What was
decided coolly and rationally in the pre-independence times and was taken
for granted, and what most people implicitly looked forward to as a logical
post-independence step was sought to be given a go by, as a panic, irrational
reaction to the partition.
Rather than forming a competent body to go into all aspects of
reorganisation of India and making recommendations, Nehru’s government
sought to postpone the whole issue indefinitely. Doing nothing is always
more convenient than doing something worthwhile. One can always come
up with some reasoning to maintain the status quo. Nehru’s government did
not realise the consequences of trying to sweep the whole issue under the
carpet.
The issue erupted. First, for Andhra. The government tried their best to
suppress the agitation. The more they tried the worse it became. Ultimately,
they had to give in, and the state of Andhra Pradesh was formed in 1953.
Wrote Dr Dhananjay Keer in ‘Dr. Ambedkar: Life and Mission’:
“…on September 2, 1953, Dr. Ambedkar criticized Government for
its vacillating policy on the formation of linguistic states. He
strongly repudiated the view that linguistic reorganization would
lead to the disintegration of India. Potti Sriramalu, he observed, had
to sacrifice his life for the sake of creating Andhra. If, he added, in
any other country a person had to die in order to invoke a principle
that had already been accepted, it was possible that the Government
of that country would have been lynched.”{DK/449}
All the violence, destruction to property, and bad blood among people
speaking different languages could have been avoided had the issue been
rationally and peacefully settled through a body that could have been set up.
Ultimately, States Reorganisation Commission (SRC) was formed in 1954.
The matter of Maharashtra, Gujarat and Mumbai was again allowed to
hang for too long, leading to agitations and violence. Eventually, Nehru had
to give in. The states of Maharashtra and Gujarat were created on 1 May
1960.
It showed that the Nehru’s government lacked the wisdom to do the
right thing at the right time, and created avoidable problems for itself and
for the country. Only when forced did they do what people demanded and
aspired for. If you indeed had some great and valid principles behind what
you did, you should have stuck to your stand, even if you became unpopular
and were later thrown out in the elections. What was the down side, if any?
Nothing. The linguistic states never asked for secession. Indian unity
actually became stronger. The language and culture of different linguistic
states flourished—compared to what the status was earlier.
The problem with Nehru was that most of his major stands—whether on
Kashmir, or on Hyderabad, or on India-China border issues, or on economy,
or on the Northeast, or on States’ reorganisation—displayed lack of grasp
and clarity. Fortunately, he retracted on States’ reorganisation, else there
would have been further problems.
SAFETY OF MINORITIES, DALITS & VULNERABLE SECTIONS
Among the very basics expected from any government is safety and
security of all its citizens, including the vulnerable sections like the poor,
minorities, dalits, women and children. This is fundamental. Other things
come later. People should not feel threatened by terrorist, communal, caste,
gender or domestic violence. They should be able to breathe freely and live
fearlessly—otherwise what is the point of gaining “independence”. Safety
is what independent India should have firmly ensured within the first five to
ten years of its existence. Not a difficult goal to achieve at all, given the
desire and the will. The safety and social justice should have been ensured
whatever it took: persuasion, education, publicity, unbiased and empathetic
governance and criminal-justice system—even violence where needed.
Doing so requires desire, determination, uncompromising commitment
against injustice, ideas, planning, well thought-out strategy, reforms and
action—and equitable representation to bring-in the balance.
However, rather than leaving it to private individuals and companies to
manage and run farms, factories and businesses and encouraging them and
supporting them in their endeavour to ensure fast growth, if the government
unwisely arrogates to itself that task (through state ownership—socialistic
setup) it is least qualified for, and remains predominantly preoccupied with
it, where is the time to devote to its most fundamental duties! On top of it,
rather than quickly resolving issues, you let problems with your neighbours
on boundaries and other matters drag on consuming your precious time and
resources. Through your unwise policies, you create problems where none
existed. In other words, you drain yourself and your resources either doing
what you should not be doing, or tackling the self-created problems, with
the result that you fail to put in determined efforts to improve governance
and tackle the existing problems.
What is the effect? No change or change for the worse, post-
independence. The heartless anti-weak and anti-poor and corrupt criminal-
justice-police system continues as in the colonial days. There is no reform
or replacement. The babus and the brown-sahibs with their colonial
mentality and mores continue to ill-treat the natives, and carry on with their
corrupt ways and misgovernance.
What is the result? Poor, minorities, dalits, women and children
continue to remain highly vulnerable. There were reportedly 243 communal
riots between 1947 and 1964 and there was not much improvement in the
lot of the poor and the Dalits.
What was the action? Verbiage. More verbiage. Keep talking of
secularism, socialism and protection of poor, minority and dalits. Let them
feel insecure and vote for you in the hope that perhaps one day you might
translate your promises into action.
Strangely, being secular and non-communal is considered as something
very special: “That leader was totally non-communal!...This party is
thoroughly secular!!...” The fact is most of the Indians are indeed secular
and non-communal. So, it is a very common quality and a feature of the
Indian society. Why then tom-tom about it? If you are not communal, so are
most. What’s the big deal? But, no. With little worthwhile practical
achievements on the ground to beat the drums about, and on the self-serving
presumption that “those many or most” are communal, I have at least one
thing to show off—I am secular!
However, for a political leader, is it sufficient to be personally non-
communal, but do little to ensure communal harmony? If communal riots
and caste atrocities continue to take place, if the minorities, the dalits and
the weaker sections continue to be on the receiving end, what’s the use of
your being personally non-communal or pro-weaker sections. The real test
of a secularist and socialist leader and for his empathies with the weak is
what did he achieve on the ground. India and its rulers since independence
cut a sorry figure on this aspect.
If universal education up to class 10 had been made compulsory after
independence, if people had been specifically educated on secularism, anti-
casteism and women’s rights, the post-independence generation would have
been different, and even those remaining communal and casteist sections
could have been tackled. Simultaneously, the bureaucratic, the police and
the criminal-justice system should have been thoroughly overhauled to
make them empathetic and responsive to the minorities, the weak and the
vulnerable. Had these steps been taken, dalits and women would have
regained their dignity; and the term “secularism” would have become
redundant by 1960.
Take Singapore. Lee Kuan Yew managed to create a unique Singaporean
identity within the umbrella of multiculturalism in just the first 15 years of
his rule, despite the fact that Singapore never had a dominant culture to
which locals and immigrants could assimilate. They have ensured religious
and racial harmony through the decades. Singapore has consistently been
ranked as the safest country in the world; and among the top five in the
Global Competitiveness Report in terms of its reliability of police services.
Sadly, we had been talking about poverty-removal, anti-casteism and
secularism before independence, then, more vehemently after independence
in 1947, and have thereafter been talking about the same through the years
and through the decades, and yet they remain unachieved goals. When
would we achieve them, and when would we move beyond them?
Certain aspects relating to riots are quite baffling. Say, there are two
groups: group-A and group-B. Each is based on a different religion or
region or caste and so on, or a combination of them. One member of group-
A, say AM1, or several members of group-A, say AM1 to AM20, harm—
beat up, shoot, burn, kill, and so on—one or more members of group-B, say
BM1 to BM30. Is it then ok if, in retaliation, members of group-B take
revenge on members AM100 to AM200 of group-A, who had nothing
whatsoever to do with the initial attack? If the retaliation were against AM1
to AM20, who actually attacked initially, one could understand, even
though it is illegal—law-enforcing authorities need to bring them to book.
But, what is the sense in attacking a substitute set? It’s like A hits B; and in
retaliation, B hits C! Why? Because A and C belong to the same group! B
hitting A back is understandable, but B hitting C? That’s absurd.
But, that’s how riots unfortunately are. Godse shoots Gandhi in Delhi,
he immediately surrenders too; but poor Chitpavan Brahmins, to which sub-
sect Godse belonged, are attacked in Pune and elsewhere for no fault of
theirs. Two Sikhs shoot Indira Gandhi, who are taken in custody too; yet
thousands of innocent Sikhs become the targets of the goons reportedly led
by the Congress leaders. 9/11 happens, but an American shoots a poor Sikh
in the USA just because he wears long hair. 58 train passengers, including
women and little children, are charred to death on 27th February 2002 when
their compartments are set on fire at Godhra railway station by a group of
Muslim goons, who are later caught and lawfully punished by the courts;
yet innocent Muslims of Gujarat face the wrath. It is so absurd and unjust.
However, by and large the above would not happen if there was strict
enforcement of the “rule of law”.
Most Indians wish the communalism had been firmly curbed within a
decade of independence, and secularism and communalism were made non-
issues by 1957. Had Congress done the actual work on the ground of
overhauling our criminal-justice-police system and babudom, launched
vigorous educational campaign on the issue, held netas and those in
administration and police accountable for disturbances and riots, punished
the guilty and made examples of them, and adopted a non-compromising
attitude to the issue, the curse of communalism and of ill-treatment of dalits
would have vanished within a decade of independence. It was not an
unachievable target. But, when you yourselves allocate seats and win
elections on communal, religious and caste considerations, where is the
remedy? Most of the so-called secular parties have been great talkers, but,
non-doers. They want to keep the secular, communal and casteism pot
boiling to win votes, because, in practical terms on the ground, they are
incapable of solving any real issues.
In fact, this whole debate on parties, people and groups being secular or
communal, casteist or otherwise, pro-dalit or anti-dalit, pro-women or male-
chauvinists, traditionalist or modern, conservative or liberal is irrelevant to
the issue of safety of vulnerable sections of the society, that is, minorities,
dalits, women and children. The only relevant issue and the only possible
solution is “proper governance”—competent, effective and accountable
law-enforcing agency and criminal-justice system: whether it is unbiased,
well-staffed, well-equipped, well-trained, and autonomous and independent.
Who cares if people and groups and parties entertain secular or
communal or casteist or patriarchal or fundamentalist ideas. Only they have
no business to and should not be allowed to harm or exploit the vulnerable
sections.
What is required is a “rule of law” as per the Constitution. That’s the
decisive instrument. It is because the political parties have failed to govern
judiciously, it is because they have failed to effectively implement the “rule
of law”, it is because, rather than strengthening, they have thoroughly
weakened the relevant institutions that the problems of communalism,
casteism and gender injustice and violence persist, which, if the government
had the will, could have become non-issues within a decade of our
independence.
Sadly, all the great hopes banked on the gaining of independence,
“swaraj” and “power and our destiny in our own hands” stood belied
thanks to wrong policies and incompetence of the government that took
charge. Our “tryst with destiny” rather than taking us to achievable and
fondly wished-for heights, sank us into a quagmire of misery.
This bizarre secular-communal drama! Is it a case that so long as there
are communal or casteist or patriarchal people, groups and parties,
communal riots or caste exploitation or violence against women would
continue to happen? Is it a case that not until all rise above those negative
characteristics, little can be done to prevent their fall-out. That’s like saying
the only solution for corruption is that all become honest. Since that is
never going to happen, “well, what can we do?” It is basically an excuse for
not doing one’s job of good governance and blaming other factors. The
hidden agenda of many secularists is “let there be communal or caste riots
so that we can keep getting votes” and as good-governance comes in the
way of that goal, to hell with it. The gross failures—like failing to
implement “rule of law”—have their positive aspects too—they help you
retain power by scaring the minority or dalits into giving you votes!
Rather than making secularism-communalism a non-issue by
instruments of good governance and strictly enforcing the “rule of law”
within a decade or two of independence, the Nehruvians, the Congress and
other hypocritical people, groups and parties, have turned it into a weapon
to commend or condemn parties or people right since the Nehruvian times
—they even went to the extent of casting aspersions on one of the greatest
sons of India and a leader and freedom fighter head and shoulders above all
others, next only to Mahatma Gandhi—Sardar Patel. Mere words and labels
should fetch them votes—work or action on the ground is unnecessary.
Further, are we saying that by definition a “secular” person is a good
person? But, you do see in practice both “secular” goondas and
“communal” goondas. Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot were secular to the
extent of being atheists, but how many perished thanks to them! So being
“secular” is no passport to being good.
Communal harmony is a function of functioning “rule of law” and is
directly proportional to it. It has little relationship with people and parties
professing and brandishing their secularism.
In short, the real issue is “governance”, which includes enforcing “rule
of law”. Therefore, if a party claims to be secular, the touchstone of its
credentials is “governance”. If its “governance” is poor it is unfit to be
called a “secular” party. Like one measures GDP, per-capita income,
literacy, poverty, human development index (HDI), quality of living index
and so on, one needs to measure GI, “Governance Index”, for each of the
states and for the central government. It is this GI which would actually
reflect the SI—“Secularism Index”. SI can’t be measured by your decibel
levels and your protestations. It has to be measured by your real actions on
the ground—a tough call.
By that yardstick, which indeed is a real genuine measure, most
“secular” governments would score pathetically low on GI, and hence on
SI. Congress has been having removal of poverty, communal peace and
amelioration of the lot of dalits as the targets since the first election in 1952.
Since then, in every election they have been having those three as among
their targets or goals. Yet, even after over six decades of independence
during most of which they have been in power, they have failed to achieve
any of the three. What more proof is required that they are incapable of
solving any of those issues? Or, is it that they have a vested interest in
poverty and in communal and caste tension to get votes and remain in
power?
{ 5 }
Nehru’s “Secularism”
WHAT IS SECULARISM?
Secular doctrine mandates separation of the state from religion. It is the
principle of the separation of government institutions and government
functionaries mandated to represent the state from religious institutions,
religious authorities, and religious functionaries. It’s a belief that religion
should not play a role in the government. A secular state is neutral in the
matters of different religious beliefs.
A secular state can’t impose religious beliefs and practices upon people.
The decisions and acts of a secular state should not be influenced by
religious beliefs and/or practices. Secularism is not anti-religion, it is
religion-neutral. The term ‘secularism’ was first used by the British writer
George Jacob Holyoake in 1851.
In practice, the following would be the characteristics of a secular state:
(1) A secular state would not have laws based on religious scriptures
like Sharia. It would have its own civil and criminal laws applicable to all,
independent of a person’s religion.
(2) Laws, regulations, policies, planning, resolution of issues in a
secular state would be on a scientific and rational basis, backed up by facts;
rather than by religious edicts.
(3) Equal treatment of all, irrespective of class, caste, gender, region, or
religion. A secular state would not discriminate on the basis of religion. It
would not favour people of one religion over others.
(4) A secular state would be pluralistic, multi-racial, multi-religious
(including Atheism), and multi-cultural.
(5) In a secular state people respect race, religion, religious practices,
languages, and culture of one another.
It is worth noting that so long as a faith or a religion is a humanising
force it is not inimical to the modern, secular, democratic polity. So long as
a faith or a religion promotes love, compassion, harmony, tolerance, and
peace, it is compatible with the modern, secular, democratic polity.
In Christian-majority countries the term often used is “mutual-
tolerance”, because proselytizing and supremacist Christians have gradually
learnt to tolerate others. In Hinduism and its associated religions the term
used is “mutual-respect” which has a much higher content and connotation,
and not just the lowly and reluctant “mutual-tolerance”, as if one is being
magnanimous by being tolerant of them.
Maharaja Ranjeet Singh’s Sikh Empire in Punjab in India was the
earliest (first half of the 19th century) example of a secular state. He
allowed members of all races and religions to be respected and to
participate without discrimination in his durbar (court). He had a Sikh, a
Muslim, and a Hindu representatives heading the durbar. He extensively
funded education, religion, and arts of different religions and languages.
In fact, respect for all religions has been an integral part of Hinduism,
and its associated religions like Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism, which
have always been large-hearted and genuinely spiritual; unlike the latter two
supremacist, proselytizing Abrahamic religions (Christianity and Islam) that
believe that they alone are “true”, and seek to convert others to their
religion by all means fair or foul—mostly foul.
Unlike Muslims, Christians have gradually changed for the better over
the decades, notwithstanding their appalling treatment of the Jews, and the
blacks, their cruelty in Central American, Latin American, African and
Asian colonies, and the horrifying means adopted by the Christian
missionaries for proselytization. Thanks to that change for the better most
of the Christian-majority states are now secular.
However, there is hardly a Muslim-majority state that is secular. Islam
and Muslims indeed have a very long, long way to go. Unfortunately, rather
than endeavouring to go forward, they (not all, but predominantly) are
currently going in the reverse direction: from bad to worse, from the slight
modernity, thanks to the effect of the surroundings and non-Muslims, to
dark ages.
RELIGIOUS APPEASEMENT
What is religious appeasement, and why is it communal, non-secular
and unethical?
Religious appeasement of a given religious group is favouring them
over other religious groups, and/or pandering to their unjustified demands,
and/or providing them facilities not provided to others, and/or not applying
the same yardstick to them as are applied to others, and/or ignoring their
transgressions and excesses, and/or allowing them to do what is repugnant
to others, when other groups are barred from doing what is repugnant to
them.
Religious appeasement is indulged in by groups and individuals, mainly
political parties and political leaders, to gain an unfair advantage, and to
enhance their vote-bank.
In India, the religious appeasement has been almost exclusively towards
the religious minorities comprising the followers of the latter two
proselytizing, supremacist Abrahamic religions, Christians and Muslims,
particularly the Muslims.
The trend of appeasement of Muslims started with Gandhi, was
vigorously followed-up by Nehru in the post-independent India, thereafter
by the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty in the Congress, and now by almost all
regional or semi-national political parties like Samajwadi Party (SP),
Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP), Trinamool Congress (TMC), Janata Dal
United (JDU), Nationalist Congress Party (NCP), Dravida Munnetra
Kazhagam (DMK), All-India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam
(AIADMK), Communist Party of India (CPI), Communist Party Marxists
(CPM), Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), and so on.
If religious appeasement of Muslims were to be by way of providing
universal and better, and even free, education to them, opportunities for
more and better jobs, loans and assistance for their crafts, skills and
businesses, one would not grudge it. Majority Hindus, who by religion and
upbringing are generous and broad-minded, would certainly not grudge it.
However, this is not what the parties mentioned above offer by way of
religious appeasement. If these parties were indeed capable of providing
what is mentioned above, religious appeasement would not be necessary at
all. The Muslims would anyway vote for them for doing the good work. It
is because almost all these parties are socialistic and corrupt, and their
leaders are power-hungry, that they are unable to deliver anything concrete
either for the majority or for the minorities.
That being the scene, these parties, in order to get votes, and win
elections, have to devise those short-cuts that may not deliver anything
positive and concrete for the Muslim and other minorities, but are emotive
enough for them to be counted as their sympathisers and well-wishers.
These are generally regressive or negative issues, or crumbs in lieu of real
help.
What are these? If a Muslim is caught by any anti-terror agency, blame
it on agency’s bias. If some Muslims are killed in an anti-terror operation,
claim denial of justice—why were they not caught and tried, rather than
shot? It is a known statistical fact that 99.9% of the terror acts the world
over are done by Muslims; yet keep saying, “Terror has no religion!” Even
try to counter-balance Muslim-terror by fictitious Hindu-terror. As per the
WikiLeaks, Rahul Gandhi of the Congress Party had told the US
Ambassador to India in all seriousness that the Hindu terror was a greater
challenge than the Islamic terror! There is provision for Hajj-subsidy for
Muslims, even though there is no similar provision for other religions. Yet,
there is a demand to increase the Hajj-subsidy.
In independent India, Hindus may get evicted from their own lands—
something that never happened even in British India: thousands of Kashmiri
Pandits (KPs) were brutally evicted by the Muslims from Kashmir in 1990;
yet there was no hue and cry, and the KPs have yet to be resettled back in
Kashmir. The “seculars” have never bothered about them. The list is
endless…
ILLUSTRATIVE CASES OF NEHRUS APPEASEMENT
Calcutta vs. Bihar Riots of 1946
Please check elsewhere in this book on the details of Jinnah’s ‘Direction
Action Day’ call of August 1946 leading to anti-Hindu attacks in Calcutta,
and the ‘Great Calcutta Killings’. The Interim Government at the Centre
headed by Nehru did little to quell the riots or bring to book the Muslim
League leaders and goondas who incited the riots or were directly or
indirectly involved in them, on the excuse that law and order was a state
subject, and the Centre could not intervene. Gandhi went to Calcutta to
bring peace, but didn’t ask for an Enquiry Commission.
However, as a reaction to the ‘Great Calcutta Killings’ when the anti-
Muslim riots erupted in Bihar, while Nehru rushed to Bihar and threatened
bombing of affected areas, Gandhi asked for setting up of an Enquiry
Commission.
Other Illustrative Cases
Cases of Nehru’s appeasement of Minorities are too long. Only some
illustrative sample are given below.
In the Ajmer communal riots soon after independence, notwithstanding
the mischief of the Muslims, Nehru intervened through his private secretary
HVR Iyengar to mollycoddle violent Muslims, and ensured that as many
Hindus (even if innocent) as Muslims were arrested. On the other hand,
Patel stood firmly with the Chief Secretary of the State, Shankar Prasad,
and opposed Nehru’s unjust intervention.
Nehru turned a blind eye to illegal and rampant proselytization by the
Christian missionaries that adversely affected national interests. This was
particularly so in the Northeast where Nehru went by the advice of the
Christian missionaries. The net effect was the secessionist movements in
the North-eastern states.
Nehru insisted that Urdu was the language of the people of Delhi, and
should accordingly be given official recognition. When the Home Minister
Pant told him that the statistics showed only 6% of the Delhiwalas had
claimed Urdu as their language, Nehru tried to rubbish the statistics, though
he didn’t press further with his crazy idea.
Nehru was also in favour of Persian-Arabic script in which Urdu is
written, rather than Devanagari script in which Hindi and Sanskrit are
written.
The Constituent Assembly’s pledge of building one nation with one
citizenship became a victim of Nehru’s minority-majority syndrome. All
those who opposed him were disparaged, labelled non-secular and
communal, and weeded out. Gradually, a coterie around Nehru vigorously
spread his defective pseudo-secular, anti-Hindu, poverty-perpetuating and
misery-multiplying socialistic claptrap, and discredited and sidelined all
those who refused to toe Nehru’s line. Leaders who differed exited, and
leaders who remained became parrots, bereft of individuality and fresh
ideas.
Commented DP Mishra: Gandhiji made heroes out of clay, but under
Pundit Nehru’s leadership they are being turned into corpses.”{DPM2/262}
IGNORANCE & ARROGANCE
On the occasion of the opening of the Ramakrishna Mission Institute in
Calcutta in 1961, together with the inauguration there of a conference on
spiritual life, Nehru burst out in his speech:
“I have always avoided using the word spirituality because of the
existence of much bogus spirituality. India is a hungry nation. To
talk of spirituality to hungry men does not mean anything… It is no
good running away from the daily problems of life in the name of
spirituality. I am out of place in this gathering—I am supposed to
open this building and inaugurate the conference. I do so.”{Croc/136}
What arrogance and ignorance! Was the institute or the conference
advocating spirituality to cover up for hunger? Can’t endeavouring for a
better material life (including, of course, removal of hunger) and search for
an enlightened spiritual life go together? If not, in Nehru and Nehru-
Dynasty India of poverty-perpetuating socialism, where there would always
have been poverty and hunger, there could never have been any place for
spirituality!
IGNORING ILLEGAL PROSELYTIZATION
It is impossible for me to reconcile myself to the idea of conversion after
the style that goes on in India and elsewhere today. It is an error which is
perhaps the greatest impediment to the world's progress toward peace. Why
should a Christian want to convert a Hindu to Christianity? Why should he
not be satisfied if the Hindu is a good or godly man?
—Mahatma Gandhi, Harijan: January 30, 1937
Religion is important for humanity, but it should evolve with humanity.
The first priority is to establish and develop the principle of pluralism in all
religious traditions. If we, the religious leaders, cultivate a sincere
pluralistic attitude, then everything will be more simple. It is good that
most religious leaders are at least beginning to recognize other traditions,
even though they may not approve of them. The next step is to accept that
the idea of propagating religion is outdated. It no longer suits the times.
—HH Dalai Lama
Nehru turned a blind eye to illegal and rampant proselytization by the
Christian missionaries that adversely affected national interests.
Writes Durga Das in ‘India from Curzon to Nehru & After’:
“The Constitution-makers swept under the carpet the important
matter relating to the scheduled tribes in the Assam hills in the
north-east. They adopted a formula virtually placing the region
outside the pale of normal Union laws and administrative apparatus.
Nehru did this on the advice of Christian missionaries. His
colleagues in the top echelons let it pass, treating the matter, in the
words of Azad, as ‘a Nehru fad’.”{DD/274}
It is worth noting that Sir Reginald Coupland (1884–1952), a historian
and a professor of the Oxford University who had accompanied the Cripps
Mission as an adviser in 1942, had recommended for a statutory guarantee
that the work of the Christian missions in the hill tracts of Assam (Assam
then included all the NE states) would continue uninterrupted.{DD/207}
Massive conversions in the Northeast states, particularly Nagaland and
Mizoram, have led to secessionist movements.
Christian missionaries and a number of foreign-funded NGOs have
deliberately propagated and funded the myths of Aryan-Dravidian conflicts
and differences. They have been active in anti-Brahmanical and anti-Hindu
propaganda. They have taken advantage of the poverty and wants of the
dalits and the tribals. Why? All this helps than in conversions. It is they
who have fuelled Aryan-Dravidian politics in Tamil Nadu to help than in
their proselytization project. It is necessary to realise that conversions (at
least over 99% of them) to Christianity or Islam are actually spiritual
murders more heinous that physical murders, as they unhinge a person from
her roots.
It seems Nehru did not understand the correlation among religion,
nation, partition, and divisiveness; despite being a witness to creation of
Pakistan. It may be fine to be personally an atheist, or agnostic, or above
religion; but it is definitely foolish and irresponsible, as a national leader, to
ignore the reality of religions, particularly the latter two Abrahamic
religions, and their effect on people and regions and their potential for
divisiveness. There are 126 Christian-majority, and 49 Muslim-majority
countries in the world, but just one Hindu-majority country—that is, India
(leaving the tiny country Nepal). Is it not an Indian leaders responsibility to
ensure that at least one country remains Hindu-majority, and safe for
Hindus, and to which prosecuted Hindus elsewhere in the world (like in
Pakistan and Bangladesh, and, sadly, even from its own state of Kashmir)
could seek refuge. Isn’t it the least that Hindus, who have suffered a
millennium of slavery and prosecution at the hands of Muslims and
Christians, must expect from the Indian leaders. People of other religions
must, of course, have full freedom as equal citizens; but they can’t be
allowed to dominate, illegally proselytize, and displace the Hindu
majority.
Christian missionaries and their illegal proselytization has created havoc
in many parts of India, and it is high time India woke up to them and took
effective counter measures. Nehru dynasty never cared about India’s
religious and cultural foundations and heritage, but non-Dynasty
governments need to act differently.
Proselytization in India has been solely for economic reasons, and to a
lesser extent on account of societal reasons. Religion or spiritualism, or
‘seeking God’, or appreciating that the religion one is converting into is
“better”, has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Hence, all conversions are
illegal (barring perhaps 0.01%). There is, of course, no question of the two
latter Abrahamic religions, the “religion of compassion”, and the “religion
of peace”, which have caused terrible and indescribable miseries to
uncountable millions of locals belonging to other faiths in Africa, Asia,
Europe, North America, South America, and Australia through the
centuries, being superior or the only true religions. None can come even
remotely near to the essential Hinduism. There can, therefore, be no
conversion through rational analysis and conviction.
Conversions actually got a fillip thanks to the Nehruvian policies. If you
have chosen the socialist path, which benefits only the politicians and the
babus, poor can never really come up. Deprived of medical facilities, free
education, other necessities, and even food, they become easy targets for
conversion. Had India followed free-market policies, India would have been
a prosperous first-world nation, with better administration and justice, long
ago; leaving little scope for illegal conversions.
{ 6 }
Mental & Cultural Slavery
NEHRU : “THE LAST ENGLISHMAN TO RULE INDIA
We managed to break the shackles of economic and political slavery.
But mental and cultural slavery—that we have willingly adopted!
That Gandhiji had done much to counter that slavishness is well-known.
But, what is strange is that little was done in the post-independence period
by Gandhiji’s chosen protégé—Nehru—to carry forward Gandhiji’s legacy,
and rid Indians of their mental and cultural slavery. If anything, it increased
—in no small measure to the examples set by Nehru himself, and the
policies that flourished under him.
Gandhi had once told: Jawahar wants Englishmen to go but Angreziat
to stay. I want Angreziat to go but Englishmen to remain as our
friends.”{DD/261} Knowing this, why Gandhi chose Nehru as prime minister is
a mystery. Gandhi used to say that even though Nehru used to fight with
him on many issues, ultimately he used to agree with him [Gandhi]. Little
did Gandhi know that it was not because Nehru agreed with him, but
because Nehru knew that to continue to differ from Gandhi might cost him
his position—like it happened with Netaji—and his goal of becoming the
prime minister. Gandhi had also said that after he would be no more, Nehru
would speak his language. If Gandhi had watched from heaven, he would
have known that Nehru had buried Gandhism along with his [Gandhi’s]
death. Incidentally, this last thing was told by a Nehru loyalist, Rafi Ahmed
Kidwai, himself, as quoted by Durga Das in his book: Jawaharlal has
performed the last rites not only of Gandhi but of Gandhism as well.”{DD/279}
Nehru was reported to have said about himself: “Galbraith, I am the last
Englishman to rule India!{Wolp2/23} Nehru said this privately in his
conversation with the American ambassador JK Galbraith. The remark is
also mentioned in Fareed Zakaria’s book, ‘The Post-American World’{Zak}.
We had such great swadeshi nationalists! Nehru had also remarked: “…in
my likes and dislikes I was perhaps more an Englishman than Indian. I
looked upon the world from an Englishman’s standpoint.”{RNPS/100}
In fact, when Nehru had returned to Allahabad from London after his
studies, the then British Governor of UP had hoped that George (as
Jawaharlal was known in British Indian circles then) would be Lord
Macaulay’s dream of a Brown Englishman come true.{YGB/ix} Incidentally,
Lord Thomas Babington Macaulay, the ‘Pope’ of British–English education
in India, had said in his Minute on Education on 2 February 1835:
“…We must at present do our best to form a class who may be
interpreters between us and the millions whom we govern; a class of
persons, Indian in blood and colour, but English in taste, in
opinions, in morals, and in intellect.”{URL26}
Effectively, what Macaulay advocated was creation of a new caste: an
elite class of anglophiles—the ‘Brown Sahibs’. And, that’s what the Nehrus
were. Motilal Nehru had once banned the use of any language other than
English in his house, creating thereby difficulties for those in his large
household who didn’t know English.{Akb/27}
In his book ‘Jawaharlal Nehru, a Biography’ Sankar Ghose writes:
“Malcolm Muggeridge, after seeing Nehru shortly before his death,
characterized him as 'a man of echoes and mimicry, the last viceroy
rather than the first leader of a liberated India', and regretted that
Nehru was much too British in his approach to have been able to
bring about significant or radical changes in India.”{SG/193}
Remarked Nirad Chaudhuri in his ‘Autobiography of an Unknown
Indian, Part-II’: Nehru was completely out of touch with the Indian life
even of his time, except with the life of the self-segregating Anglicised set of
upper India who lived in the so-called Civil Lines.”{NC2} Chaudhuri said that
Nehru had little understanding of the actual India life or culture or of
Hinduism; and was a snob, contemptuous of those who spoke English with
an Indian accent.
Wrote Brig. BN Sharma: “Nehru’s personality acquired a superficial
Indianness and a love for English mores without developing a deep insight
into the core of either culture or philosophy.”{BNS/10} NB Khare, the president
of the All-India Hindu Mahasabha had said in 1950 that Jawaharlal Nehru
was: English by education, Muslim by culture, and Hindu by an accident
[of birth].”{Akb/27}
MONUMENTS TO SLAVISHNESS
Colonial Statues, Names
Right in the heart of New Delhi, at India Gate, staring at all the passers-
by—including the freedom fighters, the bureaucrats, the politicians, the
ministers—stood the statue of King George V for two decades after 1947!
It was only when Bulganin and Khrushchev visited India in late 1955
that India changed the names Kingsway to Rajpath and Queensway to
Janpath in New Delhi, lest the guests feel shocked at our slavishness!
However, Khrushchev did not fail to notice the statue of King George V
opposite India Gate when driving down Rajpath, and wondered why the
relic still stood. But, it was only in 1968 that the statue was removed, and
that too upon public outcry!{DD/323}
Colonial Clubs
Bengal Club in Kolkata did not allow Indians till a decade after
Independence! Breach Candy Club in Mumbai continued with its sign
“Dogs and Indians not allowed” well after Independence!! British openly
insulted and humiliated Indians by having such signage in various clubs,
train bogies, and other places. Yet, you have many shameless, ignorant
Indians still behaving dog-like and praising and admiring the British rule.
Khushwant Singh wrote that he was turned away from Madras Club
because he was wearing sandals. In another context he wrote that their
group was invited to Delhi Gymkhana for a cocktail only to check whether
they were properly anglicised and fitted-in!
Colonial Ways
Wrote RNP Singh in ‘Nehru: A Troubled Legacy’: “Even after
independence, Nehru’s mental make-up continued to remain as that of the
British. He showed a surprise attachment to the old standards set by the
[colonial] rulers. At informal dinners at the Prime Ministers house, a
liveried attendant stood behind each guest. After twelve years of
independence, Harold Macmillan, during his brief visit to India had
observed, ‘All the etiquette and ceremony were preserved according to the
old style. The plates and china remained, with their arms and heraldic
devices. The pictures of the viceroys were on the walls… All the pomp and
circumstances were unchanged. We were also the chief guests at garden
party; there also in the old style with the old viceroy’s guard in their
splendid uniforms, the trumpeters, the Military Secretary and the ADCs (all
in full military).’ During the same period, the American ambassador, JK
Galbraith [1961–63], after a visit to Wellington in Soth India noted in his
diary, ‘The Indian Army officers favour all British Army manners from
dress, salute, drill and whisky to moustache. The Queen’s picture hangs
prominently in the officers’ mess.’{RNPS/97}
Lutyens’ Delhi,
after the British who was abusive to Indians
Our TV and print media keep referring admiringly to the area of Raisina
Hill, Rajpath, and so on as Lutyens’ Delhi, after the British architect, Edwin
Lutyens, who designed it. When Edwin Lutyens descendants visited Delhi,
they were accorded grand receptions from the President down! Not done?
Anything wrong with that?
Edwin Lutyens had only contempt for India and Indians, and often used
insulting adjectives about them. Such attitude is also revealed in his letters
to his wife compiled in a book “The Letters of Edwin Lutyens to his Wife
Lady Emily” edited by Clayre Percy and Jane Ridley.
Unimpressed with anything Indian, including India’s architectural
marvels, Edwin Lutyens described ‘natives’ (Indians) as ‘blacks’ who were
beyond redemption, as, in his words, “the average Indian seems a hopeless
creature” and “the low intellect of the natives spoils much and I do not
think it possible for the Indians and Whites to mix freely and naturally.” He
wrote of Tamils in Chennai (then Madras): “But oh the people—the
scallywags. Awful faces, to me degenerate, very dark, very naked, and
awful habits of hair dressings. The bulk of the faces merely loony.” Hindu
idols revolted him, as, in his words, they were “terrible, a creature with four
arms and as many legs”. In rage, he wrote of his Indian assistant: “They
ought to be reduced to slavery and not given the rights of man and beaten
like brute beasts and shot like man eaters.”
Given the above, which self-respecting Indian would ever bring the
name Edwin Lutyens on his tongue, or ever refer to a piece of real-estate in
New Delhi as Lutyens’ Delhi. But, such is the culture promoted by Nehru
and his dynasty, and such is our shamelessness and ignorance that we
honour and eulogise those who humiliated us!!
Butcher of Amritsar & the film Gandhi
That butcher of Amritsar who massacred over a thousand and injured
many more at Jallianwala Bagh in 1919, and who gave a “crawling order”
whereby all Indians using a certain prominent street in Amritsar had to
crawl 200 yards on all fours, lying flat on their bellies—Reginald Edward
Harry Dyer: what did the “famed” British judicial system do to him?
Nothing. He was tried by the Hunter Commission, but got away without
any punishment—he was only censured. As if that was not enough, upon
his return to Britain he was presented a sword of honour and a purse for
being “the saviour of Punjab”.
The film ‘Gandhi’ of Richard Attenborough released in 1982 received
the Academy Award in 1983 in 8 categories, including the Best Picture,
Best Original Screenplay, and Best Director. It was lapped up by Indians
and the Indian government. It is often re-telecast on TV on 15 August. But,
one glaring defect of the film remains unexposed. The director shows at
sufficient length the trial of Dyer, the butcher of Amritsar, to impress the
audience the world over the grandness of the British system. However, the
movie does NOT reveal that Dyer received no punishment! It also did not
show that the British actually rewarded him for his cruelty!! Just because
the movie showed Gandhi and Nehru in good light, the government of the
day headed by Indira Gandhi did not deem it fit to highlight the grave
lacunae in the film. One wonders if Indians have any self-respect.
Indians-hater Kipling
Brown inferiorists (as opposed to supremacists) recently demonstrated
their shamelessness by advocating preservation of Rudyard Kipling’s
Bungalow at the campus of the JJ School of Arts in Mumbai (Mumbai
Mirrors cover story of 18 July 2015). What had that character (Kipling),
without any conscience, done? Claiming that [Reginald Edward Harry]
Dyer (of Jallianwala Bagh massacre: please see above) was the man who
had saved India, he had started a benefit fund for Dyer, raising over
£26,000! Kipling used to take pleasure in heaping ridicule upon the Indian
people by the use of contemptuous expressions such as “a lesser breed
without the law”, “new-caught sullen people half devil and half child”.
Professor Gilbert Murray had said about Kipling: “If ever it were my fate to
put men in prison for the books they write, I should not like it, but I should
know where to begin. I should first of all lock up my old friend, Rudyard
Kipling, because in several stories he has used his great powers to stir up in
the minds of hundreds of thousands of Englishmen a blind and savage
contempt for the Bengali…”
Yet, a class of Indians is so shameless, slavish, insensitive and lacking in
self-respect that it wanted to convert the house where Kipling lived in India
into a museum!
Western Mores
Writes Durga Das: “...several ministers who used to squat on the floor
and eat off brass plates or plantain leaves in their homes were now trying to
ape Western ways. They contended that Nehru considered only Westernised
people modern...”{DD/292}
Khushwant Singh mentions about an Indian High Commissioner in
Canada, who was a member of ICS, and uncle of his wife, in his
autobiography ‘Truth, Love and a Little Malice’, “...for the Maliks culture
meant being well-dressed, knowing European table manners and having a
familiarity with exotic drinks like Old Fashioned, Manhattan, ...”{KS/124}
Like the ICS, the brown sahibs and people like the Nehrus, army was
yet another bastion afflicted by the disease. Writes Kuldip Nayar reporting
on the position on the front during India-China war: “I met young army
officers sitting in another corner of the lounge. They were bitter and openly
spoke of how every requirement of senior officers—soldiers had to carry
commodes—were met at the last picket post even while the firing was
going on. A captain admitted: ‘We are no longer fighters. We think of clubs
or restaurants even in the trenches. We have gone too soft; we’re no
good.’”{KN}
Contempt for things Indian
The affliction in the army extends even to medicine, and to this day!
These are the extracts from DNA of 12 June 2012: “Injured and paralysed
during the 26/11 terror attacks in Mumbai, commando PV Maneesh
[awarded the third highest gallantry medal, Shaurya Chakra, for rescuing
hostages during the attacks] had been hoping to start ayurvedic treatment. A
recent order by the army, however, has dashed his hopes. The order refuses
to change the policy to include alternative system of medicine in its rules
for reimbursement despite a Delhi high court order that had directed the
army to formulate a policy in this respect. The [army] order states that
changing the rule of reimbursement is not in the interest and ethos of a
disciplined force...Maneesh, who hails from Kerala, wanted to try a special
ayurvedic treatment, which, he heard, could improve the mobility of his
paralysed right side. For the past one year, he has been undergoing
treatment in Palakkad, Kerala. Last August, the Delhi HC had asked the
army to formulate a policy in three months for setting up a mechanism for
reimbursement of ayurvedic treatment undergone by its soldiers. The army,
which kept quiet for seven months, has now responded with the order. It
says introduction of Indian systems of medicine is not agreed upon due to
valid scientific reasons...In the order passed, army has stated that since it
has only allopathic doctors it can't administer, and therefore allow,
ayurvedic treatment in its hospitals...Ironically, the health ministry has a
cell called AYUSH to promote ayurveda. ‘Adopting this way is
contradicting the existing government policy of 2002 which states that these
Indian systems are scientific and should be encouraged. Further, army has
made no attempt to recruit ayurvedic doctors or tie up with government
ayurvedic hospitals in various states where the troops are posted,’ said
Maneesh's lawyer...”
BROWN INFERIORISTS
What takes the cake are the CB-NSR-SA-EII: Colonially-Brainwashed
Non-Self-Respecting Self-Abusive Educated Indian Ignoramuses. It is
amazing and baffling that even in the 21st century there exists this class of
Indians, young included, who despite their claims to being educated and
knowledgeable, unhesitatingly and unabashedly diagnose the “misery that is
India” not on the Nehruvian socialistic poverty-perpetuating policies, not on
the disastrous Dynasty-driven Congress rule for most of the period since
independence, not on the abysmally poor political leadership, but on
“Indian-ness; Indian characteristics”—a bizarre self-flagellating racist self-
attack, à la Nirad Chaudhuri. And like the British-licker Nirad Chaudhuri,
this tribe has much to admire in the British and the British colonial rule in
India. Dictionary definition of a racist is “a person with a prejudiced belief
that one race is superior to others”. You have the racists like the “White
Supremacists”. But, what do you call these “reverse racists” who believe
“their race is inferior to others”—“brown inferiorists”!
These brown inferiororists do not realise that India would have been a
prosperous, first-rate, first-world country by 1980 had it adopted
competitive capitalism and free-market economy after independence. That
is a reasonable estimate extrapolating the time it took Singapore, South
Korea and Taiwan to become first-world countries and the time it took West
Germany and Japan to rise from the ashes of the Second World War by
adopting competitive capitalism. Had India been moving fast towards being
a first-world country after independence and had it indeed become so by
1980, the brown inferiorists and the CB-NSR-SA-EII would not have had
grounds to exist. It’s thanks to the Nehruvians and the policies of the
Dynasty-driven Congress that they exist.
To illustrate, a typical argument of CB-NSR-SA-EII’s and Brown-
Inferiorist’s runs like this: “But look, their contribution at modernisation is
so major—they brought in railways! Where would India have been
otherwise?” One can only pity the intelligence and analytical power of such
characters. Does a country have to be colonised to get railways? China has
railway—now the fastest in the world—but it was not colonised. Japan has
the best railway, but it was never colonised. If your economy is good, if you
have the money, can you not invite foreign companies to setup railway, if
you can’t do it yourself? For airways—aeroplanes and airports—did India
have to be colonised by the US? India did not have computers to start with.
Did it ask the US to come, colonise it, so that it can have them! There are
countries that lack software skills. Should they request India to come and
colonise them so that they may have software to run their businesses! For
Indians to use iPAD and iPhones, does it have to be colonised by the USA?
With even one-millionth the money looted by the British colonialists
from India, India would have had the resources to build railways thousand
times more dense, and of better quality! Incidentally, Matheran Hill
Railway on such a difficult terrain was financed and built by Indians during
the British times. It was built between 1901 and 1907 by Abdul Hussein
Adamjee Peerbhoy. Further, several Princely States had their railways.
Amitav Ghosh, the famous Indian author (The Circle of Reason, The
Glass Palace, Sea of Poppies,...), making fun of the claim that the British
gave India the railways, commented: “Thailand has railways and the British
never colonized the country. In 1885, when the British invaded Burma, the
Burmese king was already building railways and telegraphs. These are
things Indians could have done themselves.”
Railways were built more for transport of goods to facilitate efficient
exploitation of and extraction from India and for travel-comfort of the
British, and not as an intended benefit for the natives. While the British
travelled in luxury, the Indian passengers were treated like dirt in the
railways. For details, one can read the booklet “Third Class in Indian
Railways” by Mahatma Gandhi written in 1918—available for free on the
web. Wrote Sunderland: “British treat the Hindus as strangers and
foreigners in India, in a manner quite as unsympathetic, harsh and abusive
as was ever seen among the Georgia and Louisiana planters in the old days
of American slavery... There have been cases in which British soldiers
forcibly ejected from railway compartments educated Brahmins and courtly
rajahs who had tickets for this space.”
CB-NSR-SA-EIIs and Brown-Inferiorists owe their origin and
entrenchment to Nehru and his dynasty.
MOTILAL-TRIBE VS. RAO-TRIBE
There was already a tribe of brown sahibs prior to independence, but
with the departure of the whites, this tribe entrenched itself. Slavishly
imitating the West, and adopting their mores was “forward-looking” and
being “advanced”, while being Gandhi-like was being native and backward.
Without being jingoistic, one must adopt good things, even if foreign.
But, there is a big difference between being rational, scientific, liberal,
forward-looking, yet self-respecting; and being slavish show-offs and
imitators. You can’t start rubbishing your history, language, religion,
culture, music, eating habits, medicinal practices, and so on to appear
modern. To imitate is a cheap way of appearing forward-looking. Where is
the rationality, modernity, scientific temperament and wisdom in panning
all things Indian, and in admiring all things foreign!
You notice a sharp contrast between the "Motilal-tribe" and the
"Narsimha Rao-tribe"? Motilal-tribe, that is, the Motilal Nehru dynasty, the
imitators like Motilal Nehru, his son, the ICS tribe and the like. Motilal
Nehru went to ridiculous extent to be more English than the Englishmen.
Rao-tribe, that is, the current young generation of information
technologists, finance professionals, management consultants and the like,
who have come up thanks to reversal of the Nehru Dynasty’s economic
policies by Narsimha Rao. Those of the Motilal-tribe were imitators, who
regarded knowing English and being anglicised as enough qualities for
gaining positions and privileges, and they bent over backwards to please the
English and westerners. The Rao-tribe youngsters, on the other hand, are
confident professionals meeting all—English, Americans, Europeans,
Australians, Canadians, Japanese, Chinese, Singaporeans—on equal terms,
never considering it necessary to know Queen’s English—SMS English or
Working English being sufficient—or to imitate their mores and habits,
merely to look “like them”. In fact, if this Jeans generation gets to know of
the Motilal-tribe and what they did, they would be aghast.
You had characters like Nirad Chaudhuri—you can club all these in the
Motilal-tribe—who would laboriously mug up histories of various wines so
that he could narrate them in conversations and impress the listener on how
knowledgeable was he in things English! Listeners belonging to the
Motilal-tribe would lap it up, and write glowingly of the encyclopaedic
knowledge of Nirad Chaudhuri. In contrast, a member of the young
generation—Rao-tribe as we have called it—would consider such nonsense
fantastic. He or she has many better things to master, and get forward in
life, than to please the whites.
LORDLY WAYS
Nehru, who had ranted against rajas, maharajas, nawabs and feudal lords
more than anyone else in pre-independent India, not only adopted lordly
and feudal ways himself, but allowed the same to prosper under his
“democratic” watch.
Rather than his master's simplicity, Nehru adopted ostentatious Viceroy-
like trappings. After Independence, Gandhiji had suggested that the
Governor-General of free India should stay in a modest accommodation,
rather than in the huge and imposing Viceroy palace—later named as
Rashtrapati Bhavan—which should be converted into a public hospital.
But, Nehru advised that an alternate suitable accommodation was not
available! The place next in stateliness and grandeur to the Viceroy palace
was the residence of the British Commander-in-Chief, then called Flagstaff
House. Leaving his York Road residence, Nehru occupied this magnificent
house, which was later renamed as Teen Murti Bhavan. Others followed
Nehru's example, occupying huge, spacious bungalows. British had
deliberately designed these palaces and bungalows to intimidate the natives,
appear remote, and command respect. What was the logic of the leaders of
free India to follow in their footsteps?
Wrote MO Mathai:
“At 10 Downing Street, the British Prime Minister has only a couple
of suites of rooms for his personal use. All the rest are offices and a
few are public rooms... Tage Erlander, the Social Democratic Prime
Minister of affluent Sweden, for twenty years lived in a three room
flat. His wife was a teacher...The Swedish Government did not
provide him with a car. The PM and his wife had a small car which
they drove themselves. They could not afford to keep a driver...
Labour Prime Minister Joseph Chiefley of rich Australia lived in
two rooms in a second class hotel near his office. His wife preferred
to live on their farm... The PM was not provided with a car. He
walked between his hotel and his office...”{Mac/82-3}
What an irony! The non-Gandhians of the rich, Western countries were
being Gandhi-like; while the ‘Gandhian’ Congressmen of our own poor,
pathetic, post-independent India were adopting the ways of rajas and
maharajas, whose feudal, privileged lifestyle they, particularly Nehru, had
been cursing all through!
Writes S. Nijalingappa in ‘My Life and Politics’:
“But after becoming prime minister, he [Nehru] left 17 York Road, a
fairly large building and moved to possibly the second largest
official residence next to the Rashtrapati Bhavan. His reason of
doing so was that official dignity required it. In contrast, I may
mention the instance of Ho Chi Minh, the president, Vietnam. When
I saw him during his visit to Delhi, he said he had only a few clothes
and only two pairs of sandals and lived in a small house. But, in
independent India, simple living became an exception. Sardar
Vallabhbhai Patel, throughout his stay in Delhi, whether before or
after accepting office, lived in a small house at Aurangzeb Road,
only large enough for himself and his daughter.”
Durga Das recorded: “Mrs. [Vijayalaxmi] Pandit [Nehru’s sister] told
me: ‘I never travel without Ahmed (her liveried peon). The common people
know me to be a Minister because Ahmed is with me. They salaam
“Ahmed’s livery”.’ Nehru himself realised this well enough when he
became the Prime minister and had a retinue of peons and security staff—
several times the size any Viceroy had had—when he moved among
people.”{DD/185}
THAT STRANGE INDIAN ANIMAL: VIP AND VVIP
The other day a TV commentator stated that a foreigner visiting a
Government office with him asked, “Are there three sexes in your
country?” Baffled, the commentator looked at him wondering what to make
of it. The foreigner helpfully added, “I notice three toilets: Men, Women
and VIPs!”
In a conversation on TV a senior IAS lady justifying separate, special
toilets for “officers” commented: “People don’t know how to use toilets,
they make them so dirty!”
All these vividly illustrate the extent to which the politicians and
bureaucrats since the Nehruvian times have managed to keep India and
Indians they are expected to serve so pathetic, like the British before them
did, that they need segregation from “common” Indians, again like the
British, to carry on.
Even taking that silly, bloated IAS lady at her face value, what about the
many who have clean toilet habits but are not “officers”? And, what about
the officers who have dirty toilet habits?
We are still afflicted with a colonial mindset; and given the army of
officers like that lady IAS, India is not likely to see better days.
Nehru himself had an elitist mindset and rather than ridding India of the
colonial, brown-sahib culture, he allowed it to flourish—he encouraged it
through his own example. The Indian government under Nehru represented
in many respects a continuation of British attitudes both in form and
substance. Indians, even after the British left, were confronted with the
same civil servants, and the same policemen who treated them with the
same scorn, arrogance and brutality, and the same master-slave attitude, as
under British rule.
Here is an example from Bhilai Steel Plant [BSP]—a public sector.
There were many hospitals in Bhilai run by BSP, and also a main hospital
with all facilities in the 1950s and 1960s. The hospital timings commenced
at 8am. Patients would try to be there as early as possible so that their turn
could come early—especially the employees who had to go to office in the
general shift by 10am or 11am; and the students who had to attend schools.
If you reached there at 8am, there would already be a long queue, and your
turn might come at noon or beyond. So, most tried to be there as early as
possible. However, employees belonging to higher grades and their spouses,
sons and daughters had a preferential treatment: the first half-hour to one
hour after 8am when the doctor came was reserved for them. They had a
separate queue, which was always small, as they belonged to a smaller,
upper echelon. So, even if they arrived at 8.30am they could see the doctor
in the next 15 to 30 minutes. The others, even if they came at 7am, would
sometimes wait till 1pm to see the doctor, if the queue was long, which was
often the case. This patently unfair and unjust system went on for decades,
and may still be prevalent!
Mind you, such practices started in the fifties during the Nehru period,
and continued through the Indira period. What does it tell about the
“socialism” of Nehru and the pro-poor propaganda of Indira and others!
VIP area, VIP security, VIP red-beacon lights on vehicles,
inconveniencing hundreds and thousands to let VIP car pass, VIP passes
and VIP queues even in temples to let VIPs have darshan while thousands
patiently wait: what does this all show? It is a gross insult to the public at
large. Why should public, whose servants these politicians and bureaucrats
are, suffer and get humiliated by these servants-turned-masters? After
independence, and after displacing the British and over 500 rajas and
maharajas from their princely states, we have not become democratic, we
have become even more feudal.
Like against corruption, there ought to be a wide-spread civil-society
agitation to abolish this obnoxious and humiliating VIP culture.
Writes Inder Malhotra in his article, “Very Indian Phenomenon” [VIP],
in The Indian Express of 21 July 2012: “...the ‘common person’ [in USA]
doesn’t give a damn about VIPs. Here, of course, the situation is hugely
different. The VIP status is flaunted in the face of countless millions every
day, round the clock and round the calendar. You don’t have to spell out the
word; everyone knows what it means. In sharp contrast to what prevails in
the US, the super-wealthy in India don’t need to proclaim themselves VIPs.
They get whatever they want without saying a word. The whole system
seems geared to their needs and wishes. The odd tycoon who gets caught on
the wrong side of the law lives in jail in greater luxury than five-star hotels
can provide. It is the political class, the army of bureaucrats... that form the
bedrock of the VIP cult and the perks and privileges that go with it. Like
much else, the VIP is a legacy of the British Raj. Independent India has not
only embraced it with gusto but also expanded it vastly... English class
system and India’s deathless caste system must have rubbed off on each
other to produce the wonder that is the Indian VIP... Indian scene had added
to the woes of the helpless non-VIPs in direct proportion to the burgeoning
privileges and pampering of those more equal than the rest...”
DISTORTIONS OF INDIAN HISTORY
There has been little genuine work in Indian history after independence.
No worthwhile books on Indian history come from the Indian academe. The
major source continues to be foreign books and foreign writers.
No importance has been accorded to the study of history, languages,
arts, archaeology and such subjects—there is no incentive or
encouragement for students to take up those subjects. If brilliant students
took these subjects and did research the scene could change. Overwhelming
majority of the young go in for graduation in engineering, medicine, law,
finance, management and commerce.
Actually, the things have been so manipulated over the last two
centuries that anything Indian has been shown in bad light, and anything
English as something superior. And it has been so skilfully done that
foreigners or English do not have to do it anymore, it is the Indians
themselves who have become self-abusive, and appreciators of all things
English or Western.
Part of the reason is that the economy did so badly under the Nehru-
Gandhis and India became so pathetic that people felt there was something
intrinsically deficient about India and the Indians. Rather than blaming
Nehru or Indira Gandhi for their disastrous policies, which turned India into
a beggar, people began to feel anything Indian was bad, and anything
foreign was good. Had India done well after independence, the impression
would have been diametrically opposite.
If you have to exploit nations and subjugate its people on a long term
basis—for decades and centuries—you can’t do it by brute force alone. You
have to shake the confidence of people in themselves. You have to make
them feel they are nothing—and that they were nothing—before the
aggressors. To this end you have to rewrite and reinterpret their history,
religion and culture to show how worthless it is in comparison to that of the
exploiter. This is what the British politicians, bureaucrats, army-men,
writers, novelists and historians did.
You say what you read, and are taught and told. Many books were
written by the English and the other foreigners, like Max Mueller, a
German, parts of which were either incorrect, on account of limited or
deficient research, or deliberately biased and false to serve the imperial or
the religious interests. In the absence of books depicting correct position,
these books came to be read widely, and some of them became text-books
too. You have been taught and told what the English and the Christians
desired and manufactured to serve their interests. You came to believe it. So
did others—people abroad in other countries also read these books. Down
the generations all started believing the lies as truth.
Many Indian writers too based much of their contents on these books
written by foreigners, rather than on new research. So, the writings of the
Indian authors also started suffering from the same deficiencies.
If the British came across something remarkable, which showed India
far ahead of the West in the past, they “discovered” its link with the West. If
there was something very distinguished about the Aryans, well, they came
from the West—India was subject to Aryan invasion and so on. There have
been many research-findings and writings to the contrary since, and yet that
false impression is allowed to continue in India even today. Apart from
further archaeological revelations, an inter-continental research in cellular
molecular biology has debunked the AIT: Aryan Invasion Theory. Of
course, there is no last word on such things, but there are good reasons to
believe that both the so-called Aryans and the Dravidians belonged to India
only, and did not come from outside: that has now been proved through
DNA study.
When that racist Aryan-Dravidian theory was propagated, there were
many takers for it among the educated Indians themselves, for they felt it
enhanced their status—they were not the wretched “natives”, their ancestors
came from the West! Such was the level of inferiority complex, thanks to
successful British propaganda!
Even Mahatma Gandhi, during his South African days, pleaded with the
British authorities there that the Indians be treated on par with the British,
and not like the native South Africans, for Indians too after all belonged to
the superior race, the Aryans—from the West!
See the cunning of the British in propagating the Aryan-Dravidian
theory. It helped create divisions—North vs. South— among Indians,
vestiges of which are still there. It helped them show that if there was
something superior about the Aryans, it was because they came from the
West. It also helped them show that India had been ruled by different
groups who came from the West. First, the Aryans, then the Muslims, and
then the British. If British were foreigners then so too were Muslims and
Aryans. So why crib about foreign rule, that is, their rule—especially, when
they had come only to “civilise” the natives and do good for the country!
One can understand the purpose and the motivation of the British and
other foreigners; but for Indians to talk like them—that’s inexplicable!
One of the tasks after independence should have been honest and
faithful re-writing of Indian history that had been thoroughly distorted by
the English. A competent team should have been set-up to do justice to it.
All possible academic encouragement, financial help, incentives, ample
opportunities, and rewarding career for collection and compilation of all
available source materials, engaging in intensive research, and writing of
history and social and economic life of India through the ages in as
unbiased a manner as possible, pointing out of flaws and gaps and errors in
the existing historical works, and supplementing them; and making
available the new researched material and the corrected works in various
forms: detailed, academic work, for further research; text-books for schools
and colleges; books for general reading in an interesting form; and
illustrated books for children. Historical fiction too should have been
encouraged: we need quality books like that from Amitav Ghosh.
Rather than doing the above, the concerned establishments came to be
dominated by the self-serving babu-academics, and the Nehruvians,
Marxists, and Socialists who bureaucratised the academics and ensured
emasculation of the direction to what suited the Marxist world-view, and
the convenience of the Establishment. What we have been having are
political hangers-on rather than capable scholars. They have made no
significant contributions, yet they have survived because of their monopoly
hold over the establishment.
Thanks to the above, the biased, distorted version of history written by
the English has continued. Rather than demolishing it, our “eminent”
sarkari historians reinforced the nonsense. While the English distorted
Indian history for their colonial ends, the Indian leftists-Marxists have been
further distorting history for their ideological ends, and to please their
masters.
Arun Shouri’s book “Eminent Historians: Their Techniques, Their Line,
Their Fraud” is worth reading in this context. Also the works of Rajiv
Malhotra.
These self-serving, dishonest Nehruvian, Marxist academics, apart from
the anglophiles, have done great disservice to the profession of writing
history. They sidelined the genuine ones, sending them to oblivion. Why
have they done so? It paid to be so. You came in the good books of Nehru,
himself an anglophile, and thereafter in the good books of his dynasty. You
got good positions and assignments. Academic mediocrity was no
hindrance to promotions and plum positions as long as you toed the
Nehruvian-Marxist-Socialist line. Not only that, by being pro-British or
being soft on the British, you got invited by the West and the whites for
academic assignments, lectures, seminars, and so on. Also, your mediocre
writings got published abroad, and were well-reviewed. You also got Indian
and international awards. In other words, it paid to be dishonest,
unprofessional and abusive to the real India.
The Indian-History-Distortionists did not limit themselves to accepting
distorted or false interpretations by the Western historians, they themselves
generously contributed to further massive distortion by misrepresenting and
misinterpreting the Islamic and the Hindu history. Nehru himself,
Nehruvians and Marxists, in their anxiety to appease Muslims, chose to
reinvent history, sought to downplay the terrible Islamic excesses and
periodic holocausts through the centuries (mass-loot; burning villages and
towns wholesale; mass-killings; unimaginable cruelties; rapes; forced
conversions; taking men, women and children as slaves; destruction of
thousands of temples, and building mosques over them, or using their
material; burning of books, scriptures and libraries, and so on), glorified
the Mughal period, ignored the glorious history of many Hindu kingdoms,
particularly those in the South, including Vijaynagar, and minimising or
ignoring the achievements of Shivaji and Marathas. Some examples are
given further down.
Wrote BN Sharma: “Nehru’s love for English and his leftist leanings
spawned a generation of leftist historians who rewrote Indian history in
English and put the evidence of history on its head.”{BNS/246}
GLIMPSES OF DISTORTIONS OF HISTORY
Westernised and anglophile Nehru examined and understood the India’s
heritage and historical past through the Western glasses, and his writings
carried the same bias and misinterpretation. Here is a sample of simplistic,
almost juvenile, comment of Nehru in his ‘The Discovery of India’, driven
by an arrogant presumptuousness, and a condescending Western attitude:
“And yet I approached her [India] almost as an alien critic, full of
dislike for the present as well as for many of the relics of the past
that I saw. To some extent I came to her via the West, and looked at
her as a friendly westerner might have done. I was eager and
anxious to change her outlook and appearance and give her the garb
of modernity…”{JN/50}
Wrote Brig. BN Sharma: Nehru’s original distortion propounded in the
‘Discovery of India’ in robbing the Indian culture of its soul of Hinduism,
and almost making it appear as a composite culture of diverse religious
faiths, mainly Islam and Christianity, had far reaching [negative] influence
on our modern historians… The pack of leftist and socialist historians
[court/establishment historians] nursed on Nehru’s half-baked thoughts lost
no time in rewriting history…”{BNS/59} “…Nehru’s reading of Indian history
was thoroughly flawed by the influence of Western writers and his own
predilections of looking at it from his Cambridge perch.”{BNS/65}
For comparison, here are perceptive comments from a genuine scholar
Dr KM Munshi in his foreword to his book ‘The History and Culture of the
Indian People’:
“…Our available sources of information [on Indian past]…, in so
far as they are foreign, are almost invariably tainted with a bias
towards India’s conquerors… The treatment of the British period in
most of our histories is equally defective. It generally reads like an
unofficial report of the British conquest and of the benefits derived
by India from it… The history of India, as dealt with in most of the
works of this kind, naturally, therefore, lacks historical perspective.
Unfortunately for us, during the last two hundred years we had not
only to study such histories but unconsciously to mould our whole
outlook on life upon them… Generations after generation, during
their school or college career, were told about the successive foreign
invasions of the country, but little about how we resisted them and
less about our victories. They were taught to descry the Hindu social
system…”{BNS/49-51}
‘The Discovery of India’ notwithstanding, its seems Nehru had neither
properly discovered the real history of India in several vitals aspects nor
grasped the contemporary India, as would be clear from the following
faulty interpretation of his in his letter to Lord Lothian dated 17 January
1936:
“India has never known in the whole course of her long history the
religious strife that has soaked Europe in blood… Some conflict
arose when Islam came, but even that was far more political than
religious… I cannot easily envisage religious conflict in India on
any substantial scale… The communalism of today is essentially
political, economic and middle class… One must never forget that
that communalism in India is a latter-day phenomenon which has
grown up before our eyes… With the coming of social issues to the
forefront it is bound to recede into the background.”{JN3/147-48}
Wrote RC Majumdar, the renowned historian:
“Did Nehru forget the torrent of Hindu blood through which
Mahmud of Ghazni waded to India with Quran in the one hand and
sword in the other? Did he forget Timurs invasion of India to wage
‘war with the infidels’… One would like to know in what sense the
iconoclastic fury of Feruz Tughluk, Sikandar Lodi, and Aurangzeb—
not to speak of host of others—was political rather than religious?
Nor does Nehru seem to have any knowledge of Aligarh Movement
and its founder… he [Nehru] was… unable or unwilling to face
facts.”{Mak/139}
For a glimpse of the distortion of Indian history let us take another
example from the inspirer and supporter of leftist-Marxists distortionists—
Nehru. Somnath Temple is on the shore of the Arabian sea in the coastal
town of Somnath at Prabhaspatan near Veraval in Junagadh district in
Kathiawar in the Saurashtra region of Gujarat. It is 6km from Veraval, and
80km from Junagadh. It is the most sacred of the twelve Aadi Jyotirlings.
Somnath means “The Protector of Moon God”. A legend in Skandpurana
describes how this Jyotirlinga emerged. Somraj built the temple and
dedicated it to Someshwara—another name of Shiv, with moon on his head.
The temple is said to have been first built sometime before the common
era—BCE. It was destroyed and looted six times: by Junayad, the Arab
governor of Sind, in 725 CE; by Mahmud of Ghazni in 1024 CE; by Sultan
Allauddin Khilji in 1296 CE; by Muzaffar Shah I, the Sultan of Gujarat, in
1375 CE; by Mahmud Begda, the Sultan of Gujarat in 1451 CE; and by
Aurangzeb in 1701 CE. But, each time it was rebuilt.
Mahmud of Ghazni destroyed the temple in 1024 CE in his sixteenth of
the seventeen raids into India over a period of about 30 years, and carried
away camel-loads of jewels and gold. It is said that Mahmud personally
hammered the temple’s gilded idol to pieces and carted it to Ghazni where
they were incorporated into the steps of the city’s new Jamiah Masjid
[Friday mosque]. Thousands of defenders were massacred, including one
Ghogha Rana, who had challenged Mahmud at the ripe old age of 90.
Wrote Zakariya al-Qazwini, a 13th-century Arab geographer:
“Somnath: celebrated city of India, situated on the shore of the sea,
and washed by its waves. Among the wonders of that place was the
temple in which was placed the idol called Somnath. This idol was
in the middle of the temple without anything to support it from
below, or to suspend it from above [might have been so, thanks to
magnets]. It was held in the highest honour among the Hindus, and
whoever beheld it floating in the air was struck with amazement,
whether he was a Musulman or an infidel. The Hindus used to go on
pilgrimage to it whenever there was an eclipse of the moon, and
would then assemble there to the number of more than a hundred
thousand...When the Sultan Yaminu-d Daula Mahmud Bin
Subuktigin [Mahmud of Ghazni, who was son of Subuktigin] went
to wage religious war against India, he made great efforts to capture
and destroy Somnath, in the hope that the Hindus would then
become Muhammadans. As a result thousands of Hindus were
converted to Islam. He arrived there in the middle of Zi-l k’ada, 416
A.H. [December, 1025 CE]... The king looked upon the idol with
wonder, and gave orders for the seizing of the spoil, and the
appropriation of the treasures. There were many idols of gold and
silver and vessels set with jewels..."{URL55}
In his book “The Discovery of India”, Nehru writes about “Mahmud of
Ghazni and the Afghans” in ‘Chapter-6:New Problems’. A sentence in it
goes, “He met with...on his way back from Somnath in Kathiawar.” That’s
all. There is nothing more on Somnath!
But, what Nehru totally omits in “The Discovery of India”, he does
mention a little bit in his other book which he wrote ten years earlier in
1935—“Glimpses of World History”. In “Chapter-51: From Harsha to
Mahmud in North India”, Nehru writes, “But it was in Somnath that he
[Mahmud of Ghazni] got the most treasure...” Nehru further writes:
“He [Mahmud of Ghazni] is looked upon as a great leader of Islam
who came to spread Islam in India. Most Muslims adore him; most
Hindus hate him. As a matter of fact, he [Mahmud] was hardly a
religious man. He was a Mohammedan, of course, but that was by
the way. Above everything he was soldier, and a brilliant soldier. He
came to India to conquer and loot, as soldiers unfortunately do, and
he would have done so to whatever religion he might have
belonged... We must therefore not fall into the common error of
considering Mahmud as anything more than a successful
soldier.”{JN5}
There could not be worse distortion of history. Nehru is labouring to
convince the reader that the havoc that Mahmud wrought was not because
he was a Muslim, and that a person of another religion would perhaps have
also done what Mahmud did. What utter nonsense! Further, Nehru does not
dwell on what all destruction Mahmud wrecked.
The great Indian novelist, Sarat Chandra Chatterjee (Chattopadhyay),
had commented:
“They (Muslims) were not satisfied merely with looting, they
destroyed temples, they demolished idols, they raped women. The
insult to other religions and the injury to humanity was
unimaginable. Even when they became kings they could not liberate
themselves from these loathsome desires…”{Akb2/226}
Real history is what historians of that time— contemporaries of
Mahmud—themselves wrote. As per the contemporary history, when
Mahmud of Ghazni was carrying away the Shiva idol of gold from the
Somnath temple, many rich traders came together and offered him even
more wealth if he returned the idol. Mahmud’s retort was: I am an idol-
breaker, not an idol-seller!
Nehru further writes: “Mahmud [of Ghazni] was far more a warrior than
a man of faith...” Then about Mathura, he writes, “Mahmud was anxious to
make his own city of Ghazni rival the great cities of central and western
Asia and he carried off from India large number of artisans and master
builders. Building interested him and he was much impressed by the city of
Mathura near Delhi. About this Mahmud wrote: ‘There are here a thousand
edifices as firm as the faith of the faithful; nor is it likely that this city has
attained its present condition but at the expense of many millions of dinars,
nor could such another be constructed under a period of 200 years.’”
What is interesting and intriguing is that nowhere there is any mention
by Nehru of how this Mahmud, ‘the lover of buildings’ as he calls him,
mercilessly destroyed Mathura and Somnath!
Wrote Al Utbi, an aide and secretary of Mahmud of Ghazni, in Tarikh-
e Yamini: The Sultan gave orders that all the temples should be burnt
with naphtha and fire and levelled with the ground.” Utbi wrote that
Mahmud first wanted to go to Sijistan, but subsequently changed his mind
for “a holy war against Hind”, and details how Sultan “purified Hind from
idolatry and raised mosques”. He also states that the “Musulmans paid no
regard to the booty till they had satiated themselves with the slaughter of
the infidels and worshippers of the sun and fire.” In Tabakat-I Nasiri,
Minhaju-s Siraj hails Mahmud for “converting as many as a thousand idol-
temples into mosques”, and calls him “one of the greatest champions of
Islam”. It is not for nothing that Pakistani name their missiles Ghazni and
Ghori.
Nehru wrote: “Of the Indians, Alberuni [who came with Mahmud of
Ghazni] says that they ‘are haughty, foolishly vain, self-contained, and
stolid,’... Probably a correct enough description of the temper of the
people.” Nehru seems comfortable and fine with anything negative about
Indians, but has little negative to comment on the massive destruction
wrought, and its wrecker, Mahmud of Ghazni!
Nehru further quotes Alberuni writing about the havoc caused by
Mahmud, The Hindus became like the atoms of dust scattered in all
directions and like a tale of old in the mouths of people. Their scattered
remains cherish of course the most inveterate aversion towards all
Muslims.” Nehru then comments, “This poetic description gives us an
idea...” So, Nehru found Alberuni’s description of terrible misfortune
wrought on India and Hindus poetic!
Incidentally, Alberuni had travelled to India with Mahmud of Ghazni
during the first half of the eleventh century CE. The book “Alberuni’s
India”{ES} is Alberuni’s written work on India, translated by Dr Edward C
Sachau. Here is an extract from what Alberuni, who was a witness to what
Mahmud did in India and to India, and who is referred to by Nehru in the
quote of Nehru above, had to say:
“This prince [Sabuktagin] chose the holy war as his calling, and
therefore called himself Al-ghazi (i.e. warring on the road of
Allah)... afterwards his son Yamin-addaula Mahmud marched into
India during a period of thirty years or more. God be merciful to
both father and son! Mahmud [of Ghazni] utterly ruined the
prosperity of the country [India], and performed there wonderful
exploits, by which the Hindus became like atoms of dust scattered
in all directions, and like a tale of old in the mouth of the
people...”{ES/5,6}
Interesting thing is what Nehru chooses to quote from Alberuni, and
what he chooses to ignore. Even God cannot alter the past, but “historians”
can!
People like Nehru had strangely erroneous notions on how history
should or should not be written. If writing of what actually happened in the
past—even if it was a millennium or more back—could adversely affect the
present, then give it a spin—that was their view. So, be creative with history
—bury or bend or ignore facts, if so warranted.
First, it is a false notion to presume such adverse effects.
Second, if different writers presume or interpret differently, should each
write a distorted history in his or her own way?
Third, what really happened would anyway be known through other
sources, so why play with facts. When original sources are available, the
writings by the contemporaries—those who actually witnessed what
happened and wrote about them, like Alberuni and others—why would
those who care for history be mislead by the creative writers of history?
Fourth, it is an insult to the intelligence of the general public and
readers to be presumed to be gullible enough to swallow wholesale what
these creative writers dish out.
Fifth, it is thoroughly unprofessional to take such liberties with writing
of history.
It is indeed unwise and counterproductive to try and mould history to
suit one’s ideological bend or bias, or for political or religious or social or
cultural purposes. Truth should not be fiddled with. It is better to know the
truth, whether it is good or bad, palatable or obnoxious. People must learn
to face the truth, and learn from history.
In fact, the sense of what is good and what is bad also changes from
time to time: should history then keep getting re-written?’
It is a misunderstanding of what the history-writing is all about, and
silly, immature notions of what is good for the people”, and an arrogance
that I know better what people should know that leads to writing of
creative history.
For example, Mahmud of Ghaznavi did what he did thinking he was
doing a good religious act. Whether you now think it otherwise, being an
atheist or agnostic or a liberal or of a different religion, is irrelevant. At the
time Mahmud did it, he and his people indeed thought he was engaging in a
holy, religious act. Even the writers of the time credited him so: Alberuni,
for example. Who are we to hide that fact now, thinking it is unpalatable,
and give a twist to it, like Nehru did: however bad, it was just the act of a
soldier—totally non-religious.” By doing so, we are actually trying to
establish that Mahmud was just a greedy invader out to enrich himself;
when he himself and people of his times thought he was doing a good act—
that he was on a holy, religious mission! Evidently, Mahmud was not
interested in booty and killing alone. Many of Mahmud’s co-religionists
even now think what he did was religiously good! It’s not for nothing that
Pakistan celebrates him.
What happened centuries ago is no reflection on people now. Notions
have changed. You insult people by twisting the facts. If Hindu kings did
something atrocious in the past, does it mean it should be swept under the
carpet, lest it should hurt the Hindus. Christians engaged in terrible
atrocities during their campaigns of conversion, inquisitions and
colonisation. Do they now sweep it under the carpet? No. There have been
mountains of books from the West detailing the atrocities committed.
Germans teach their children on Nazi atrocities. Truth must be known. Then
only can one come to terms with the reality and ensure the mistakes are not
repeated in the future.
January 27 is commemorated annually as the International Holocaust
Remembrance Day in memory of the massacre of six million Jews by
Hitler. Not just Israelis, Jews the world over, and other nations
commemorate it, even Germany does it, and one has to appreciate that!
Nothing has been swept under the carpet.
You had The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) in South
Africa after the abolition of apartheid to let the truth out and allow for
reconciliation and healing.
Would we erase the facts of anti-Sikh attacks of 1984, communal flare
ups, Godhra train burning, post Godhra riots, happenings in Assam and the
Northeast, and so on, driven by the philosophy of allowing only “proper”
history!
Here in India, we distort or partially erase the ancient, the medieval, the
modern, and also the recent history for various reasons—silly, ideological
or political. We won’t let historians, journalists, researchers and those
interested have access to all the documents related to the mystery of the
disappearance of Subhas Bose, or the India-China War, or the Shimla
Agreement of 1972 with Pakistan, and so on, and yet expect a correct
history to be written. We push things under the carpet in the name of the
Official Secrets Act. Or, deploy Leftists-Marxists exclusively to distort our
history!
THE LANGUAGE ISSUE
After considerable deliberations the Constituent Assembly agreed that
the official language of the Union shall be Hindi in the Devanagari script;
but for 15 years from the commencement of the Constitution, that is, from
26 January 1950, the English language shall continue to be used for all the
official purposes of the Union—that is, till 25 January 1965.
The Official Languages Act of 1963 stipulated that English “may” be
used along with Hindi in official communications after 1965. That left it
ambiguous. Was it optional?
Lal Bahadur Shastri as prime minister stood by the decision to make
Hindi official with effect from 26 January 1965, and all hell broke loose in
the South. Ultimately, Shastri had to back out.
The question is not Hindi or English, the question is why the matter was
allowed to drift for 15 years under Nehru? Why a dialogue was not
established among all the stake-holders and why what would happen post
26 January 1965 not thrashed out many years in advance allowing for a
smooth transition, or for maintenance of the status quo? If indeed all were
not agreeable on Hindi, then it should have been announced well in advance
that the status quo would continue till as long as all were not agreed.
Nehru’s drift and lack of clarity eventually led to massive agitations and
violence and bad blood among people, which were quite avoidable. Shastri
too should have been careful not to go along with a decision taken long ago
that was not acceptable to a large section.
When you analyse the issue, you get a feeling that while we failed to
tackle any of the major problems—notably economic backwardness, poor
infrastructure, grinding poverty, illiteracy, external security, internal
security and so on—we created new ones through our lack of vision, lack of
proper analysis and understanding, drift and mishandling!
If it was thought that English is a useful global language, then, as a
matter of policy, it should have been made compulsory for all from class-I
itself. Government should have pumped in money to ensure there were
facilities available in all schools to teach English, apart from the regional
language and Hindi.
Doing so would have ensured a level-playing field for all students. With
all children knowing English, the “English Language Aristocracy” would
have been dead. However, this was not done. The brown sahibs managed to
create an “English Language Aristocracy” after independence. How to
corner good positions, jobs and privileges? Make them conditional upon
knowledge of English. Restrict English to chosen schools and colleges, and
restrict access to those institutions to only the privileged.
Here is an example from Nehru’s “temple of modern India”—Bhilai
Steel Plant [BSP], a public sector. Back in the fifties and early sixties, there
were dozens of primary, middle and higher secondary schools run by the
BSP authorities, where children of BSP employees studied. Out of those
dozens of schools, only a few were English Medium Schools (EMS ), the
rest being Hindi Medium Schools (HMS). By and large, children of BSP
officials in higher grades studied in EMS, and the others in HMS. EMS
were accorded more importance and were given better facilities. The culture
had become such that the students of EMS were regarded by others, and
regarded themselves, as superior, and there was clear favouritism shown to
them. One could even notice principals and teachers being partial and
indulgent towards those in EMS.
So the special status and injustice began at the root itself—in schools!
And, the concept, the class-consciousness and segregation into EMTs—
English Medium Types—and HMTs—Hindi Medium Types—started from
the primary school itself.
This is not to say that the medium of instruction should have been
English. It should have been in the mother tongue in the schools, and
optionally also in English or Hindi—with no privileges attached to learning
in English or Hindi. But, it should have been compulsory for all to learn
English—and good English. That way, English would have been just a
foreign language everyone knew. If English became a factor in getting jobs,
like in IT or BPO or KPO, then with all students knowing it, it would not
have given an edge to the less deserving.
A miniscule English-speaking elite, a miniscule set of Hindi diehards
and a non-visionary, incompetent leadership messed up the language issue.
A vast majority of people in the South knew neither Hindi nor English, so
where was the question of their preferring either? Why should Hindi
diehards have tried to impose Hindi? It is a democratic nation, and a
consensus should have been evolved; and till that was ensured, nothing
should have been done to force any language. If a period of 15 years was
found insufficient, it should have been extended well in advance of its
expiry, lest there be any uncertainty.
Further, why shouldn’t an ancient nation like India have its own national
language known to all for easy communication, without in anyway ignoring
the regional languages or English or affecting the job-prospects? Who cares
what language is so chosen? What is important is that there should have
been at least one common language. It could have been Hindi or
Hindustani, with liberal borrowing of words from other regional languages
and English; or it could have been simplified Sanskrit or Tamil or Telugu or
Bengali or any other or a new hybrid language, with borrowings from all!
In sharp contrast to India, it is admirable what Israel did. Upon
formation of Israel in 1948, many Jews scattered all over the world came
over. They spoke different languages. To ensure a unifying language, many
linguists, backed by the State, set about reviving Hebrew, Israel’s ancient
language, which had fallen in decrepitude. Now, all Israelis speak Hebrew.
It has given them an identity, and has greatly helped unify Israel. Most also
know English, as it is taught from the primary school itself.
With the ascendency of English Language Aristocracy and the Brown
Sahibs, work in Indian languages and Sanskrit suffered a setback.
See the condition of Sanskrit—unarguably the greatest and the most
scientific language. It is becoming extinct. And unless you have mastery in
Sanskrit and other older languages you can’t do effective research in past
Indian history.
Said Will Durant, American historian and philosopher: “India was the
motherland of our race, and Sanskrit the mother of Europe's languages: she
was the mother of our philosophy; mother, through the Arabs, of much of
our mathematics; mother, through the Buddha, of the ideals embodied in
Christianity; mother, through the village community, of self-government
and democracy. Mother India is in many ways the mother of us all.”
One is told that those who have genuine interest in working on the
Indian past now go to certain reputed universities in the US, who not only
have a rich collection of relevant books, but also have faculty proficient in
Sanskrit! So, to research India, go abroad!! This is what India has been
reduced to, thanks to the ill-informed policies of the Dynasty.
The comments of Gurcharan Das are worth noting:
“...an Indian who seriously wants to study the classics of Sanskrit or
ancient regional languages will have to go abroad. ‘If Indian
education and scholarship continue along their current trajectory,’
writes Sheldon Pollock, the brilliant professor of Sanskrit at
Columbia University, ‘the number of citizens capable of reading and
understanding the texts and documents of the classical era will very
soon approach a statistical zero. India is about to become the only
major world culture whose literary patrimony, and indeed history,
are in the hands of scholars outside the country.’ This is
extraordinary in a country with dozens of Sanskrit departments in
all major Indian universities...The ugly truth is that the quality of
teaching in these institutions is so poor that not a single graduate is
able to think seriously about the past and critically examine ancient
texts... Where is India’s soft power when there are fewer and fewer
Indians capable of interrogating the texts of Kalidasa or the edicts of
Ashoka?...To be worthy of being Indian does not mean to stop
speaking in English. It means to be able to have an organic
connection with our many rich linguistic pasts...What separates man
from beast is memory and if we lose historical memory then we
surrender it to those who will abuse it.”{URL45}
Sanskrit, the most scientific language, and the mother of many Indian
and European languages, could have been simplified and modernized, and
taught in all schools, in addition to English. It would have revitalized India,
and helped unify it.
Actually, Nehru wanted to carry on with the language he was
comfortable in, and it is doubtful if he really cared for things Indian or
Indian languages or culture. What is noteworthy is that most of the freedom
fighters, irrespective of the language-region they came from, favoured
Hindi or Hindustani as a common link-language and national language.
Lokmanya Tilak fervently advocated Hindi as the national language,
holding the same as a vital concomitant of nationalism. Gandhi had praised
Tilak for his discourse on Hindi as the national language at the Calcutta
Congress. In London, Veer Savarkar had proposed the resolution on Swaraj
not in English, but in what he called the “India’s lingua franca”—Hindi.
At the Ahmedabad Congress Session in December 1921, Gandhi had
proposed three things: Hindi as India’s lingua franca, tricolour as national
flag, and khadi as the official wear for the Congress members. BK/74}
Back in December 1925, at the Kanpur Session of the Congress presided
by Ms Sarojini Naidu, Hindustani was recommended as the language for
Congress Sessions.
Wrote Gandhi in Harijan of 9 July 1938:{CWMG/Vol-73/279-80}
“...The medium of a foreign language through which higher
education has been imparted in India has caused incalculable
intellectual and moral injury to the nation. We are too near our own
times to judge the enormity of the damage done. And we who have
received such education have both to be victims and judges—an
almost impossible feat...
...Up to the age of 12 all the knowledge I gained was through
Gujarati, my mother tongue. I knew then something of arithmetic,
history and geography. Then I entered a high school. For the first
three years the mother tongue was still the medium. But the
schoolmasters business was to drive English into the pupil’s head.
Therefore more than half of our time was given to learning English
and mastering its arbitrary spelling and pronunciation. It was a
painful discovery to have to learn a language that was not
pronounced as it was written. It was a strange experience to have to
learn the spelling by heart... The pillory began with the fourth year.
Everything had to be learnt through English—geometry, algebra,
chemistry, astronomy, history, geography. The tyranny of English
was so great that even Sanskrit or Persian had to be learnt through
English, not through the mother tongue. If any boy spoke in the
class in Gujarati which he understood, he was punished...
...I know now that what I took four years to learn of arithmetic,
geometry, algebra, chemistry and astronomy I should have learnt
easily in one year if I had not to learn them through English but
Gujarati. My grasp of the subjects would have been easier and
clearer…”{CWMG/Vol-73/279-80}
After the December-1926 Gauhati Session of the Congress, Gandhi
went on yet another tour of the country, and among other things, expressed
in his speeches that he felt humiliated to speak in English and therefore
wanted every Indian to learn Hindustani. He even went further and
advocated adoption of the Devnagari script for all the Indian languages.
Once again, he found South India most enthusiastic in its response to him,
and he addressed about two dozen public meetings in Madras city
alone.”{DD/124}
After the Congress session [in October 1934], Gandhi once again
traversed the country. …he would continue his crusade urging everyone to
learn simple Hindi:
“We must give up English as an inter-provincial language and
introduce into Hindi–Hindustani words from other provincial
languages. A common Devanagari script would help as a common
script had helped the development of the European
languages.”{DD/168}
After independence, once when Gandhi was addressing a meeting at
Birla House in Delhi in Hindustani, a few in the audience said they were
unable to follow, to which Gandhi said: Now we are independent, I shall
not speak in English. You have to understand rashtrabhasha if you wish to
serve the people.”{DD/290}
According to the then Home Secretary BN Jha the efforts to make Hindi
the link-language failed thanks mainly to Nehru and his colleagues. Two big
opportunities were lost—one when all chief ministers were agreed in 1961
for Devanagari script for all Indian languages, at the recommendation of
President Dr Rajendra Prasad; and the second when a proposal based on
parliamentary committee’s report was put up in the Cabinet meeting by the
Home Minister Pant, to which Nehru had violently responded, “What is all
this nonsense? It is not possible to have scientific and technological terms
in Hindi,” even though Pant’s proposal did not cover the latter aspect—
Nehru was only expressing his dislike for Hindi.{DD/330-31}
Wrote BN Sharma:
“How is it that after almost five decades of freedom we have not
been able to shake off the burden of English and adopt our own
national language. That Hindi is the only language spoken by the
largest number of people in the largest number of states is an
indisputable fact. If a Tamilian or a Keralite can learn English with
ease why can he not learn Hindi, whose Sanskrit base is a common
source of many words in his own language. Nehru, the Western
Oriental Gentleman (WOG) never really made any sincere effort nor
did he muster enough political will to implement Hindi… He
[Nehru] used specious arguments, such as lack of scientific
vocabulary [How have France, Germany, Japan, China, Korea, and
many other European and Asian countries managed very well in
their own mother tongue?], difficulty in international
communications and diversity of local Indian languages as an
excuse to stonewall the adoption of Hindi.”{BNS/248-9}
No nation is worth its spirit and soul which does not have its own
vehicle of cultural articulation that its national language provides.
{ 7 }
Inexplicable Ways
NETAJI SUBHAS MYSTERY
Suppression of Truth
Dynasty & the Suppression of Truth
Dynacracy, that is, Dynastic Democracy, is unfair, and is against the
spirit of the constitution. It discounts merit and prevents competent from
rising. The quality of leadership emerging out of a dynastic process can
never really be good. For proof, check for yourself the unutterable
underachievements of the underwhelming leadership of the dynasts, in the
states or at the Centre, and how it has become worse and worse down the
generation. If you look at the sequence from the beginning to hopefully the
end—Nehru, Indira, Rajiv, Sonia and Rahul—you find a steep deterioration.
In the descending geometric progression of generation-to-generation falling
standards of the Nehru-Dynasty, Rahul Gandhi has scaled new heights,
rather new depths. Dynacracy also thwarts internal democracy in political
parties. Dynastic politics, nepotism, institutionalised corruption and non-
accountability go together. Dynastic politics is always at the expense of the
nation. It is the biggest menace. It’s the foundation of India’s misery.
Yet another major negative of Dynacracy is that it suppresses truth.
Continuance of the dynacracy requires that the halo be maintained. That
requires hiding the ugly, and highlighting the positive, which is mostly
manufactured. Both hiding the ugly and highlighting the manufactured
positive requires continued suppression of truth. But, that is possible as long
as the power passes within the family from one generation to the next.
There are a flood of examples of the above. The grave blunders of
Nehru, Indira, Rajiv were all suppressed, and the various institutions,
government schemes, airports, ports, bridges, awards and so on continued
to be named after these three who together with their descendants have been
at the root of India's poverty, backwardness and misery. It is this tendency
that has kept the truth on 1962-debacle (Henderson-Brooks/Bhagat Report)
and on Netaji Subhas from seeing the light of the day. Congress
governments had been stonewalling the demand for making public the
classified government files on Netaji on the excuse that relations with
foreign countries would be affected.
Dr Chandan Mitra, an eminent journalist, had this to say during the
discussions on the Mukherjee Commission’s Report in the Rajya Sabha in
August, 2006: “Dr Chandan Mitra said he could not understand why
certain Bose files were kept classified in the name of ties with certain
friendly foreign countries. ‘Are the friendly countries more important or are
the people of India more important?’ he asked. ‘It is not a political
question, it is a question of our nationhood,’ he underscored and predicted
that ‘the people of this country will not rest quiet even if it takes three more
generations’ to get at the truth about Bose.”
Mamta's Declassification
On 18 September 2015 the West Bengal government released 64 files
comprising 12,744 pages related to Subhas Chandra Bose. Many of them
relate to snooping on Netaji family members by the government of India
and West Bengal for over 20 years after the reported death of Netaji in
1945.
Subsequently, on 28 September 2015, the Chief Minister of West Bengal
Mamata Banerjee has also declassified 401 cabinet files of the period 1938-
47 that would throw light on the pre-independence era.
Files yet to be Declassified
Tacked to one of the dossiers submitted to the Khosla Commission was
a note listing 30 secret files that were either missing or destroyed. These
were part of Nehru’s own collection of confidential papers that were
handled by Mohammed Yunus, who was later appointed Indira Gandhi’s
special envoy. One of the destroyed files was titled, “Investigation into the
Circumstances leading to the Death of Subhas Chandra Bose”. It's a
mystery why Khosla never pursued the case of the missing files?
Samar Guha, MP, had alleged, among other things, that, “Most of the
secret files about Netaji, that were maintained by Pandit Nehru himself as
PM's special files, one of which included all communications connected
with INA Defense Committee, were reported by the Government as either
missing or destroyed. It will not be easy to presume that Netaji's
communication to Nehru and a copy of Nehru's letter to Attlee have also
been destroyed.”
Writes Anuj Dhar in his book ‘India’s Biggest Cover-up’{AD}: “...by
mistake the Home Ministry had actually admitted before Khosla
[Commission of Enquiry] that about 30 classified papers and files on
Subhas Bose were either missing or destroyed. The files and papers were
once in the personal possession of Nehru, who had been assisted by his
Confidential Secretary Mohammad Yunus in maintaining them. One look at
the indices, and one knew that by no stretch of imagination could they be of
‘unwanted’ type... file 12(226)/56-PM—Investigation into the
Circumstances Leading to the Death of Subhas Chandra Bose—was most
sensitive of all...”
The Book also quotes a senior journalist, Deepak Sharma, in the Pioneer
of 23 January 2001, reproducing a statement of a Home Ministry official:
“Whatever is relevant on Netaji will be shown to the Commission. But
beyond a point, the files cannot be made public. It’s too explosive.”
Even though the Central Information Commission has asked for
disclosure of the manuscript of the History of the Indian National Army
lying unpublished in Government's custody since 1950, the same has not
yet been disclosed.
Nearly 130 classified files on Netaji are claimed to be in the possession
of various Central Government departments, including 37 in the Prime
Minister's Office (PMO) and the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA).
Historic Decision by PM Narendra Modi on Declassification
Family members of Netaji have had meetings with the Prime Minister
Shri Narendra Modi in connection with declassification of files on Netaji.
A petition comprising the following four major demands has been filed
with the PM Narendra Modi by the ‘Team Mission Netaji’:
(1)Acceptance of the finding of the ‘Justice Mukherjee Commission of
Inquiry (1999-2005)’.
(2)Disclosure of all records on Netaji, including those held by
intelligence agencies and PMO.
(3)Instituting a multi-disciplinary special investigation team (SIT)
comprising historians, retired judges, intelligence officers, archivists and
representatives of the family of Netaji as well as investigative researchers
and civil society organisations to complete the probe on Netaji.
(4)Request to other countries to share information on Netaji with the
Indian government.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced on Wednesday, 14 October
2015, when Netaji Subhas's family members met him, that the secret files
related to Subhas Chandra Bose would be declassified by the Central
Government beginning 23 January (birth date of Netaji) 2016, saying “there
is no need to strangle history”.
He said he would also urge foreign governments to declassify files on
Netaji available with them by writing to them and personally taking up with
foreign leaders, beginning with Russia: FM Sushma Swaraj has since
moved the matter with Russia.
Commencement of Declassification wef 23-Jan-2016
True to his promise, PM Narendra Modi commenced declassification of
Netaji files with effect from 23 January 2016, declassifying 100 files on that
day. Subsequent to the same, 25 files would be declassified after due
digitization on the 23rd of each month. Thanks to the declassification, some
of the items given in this book which were unconfirmed have been
confirmed.
It is worth noting that nothing of what the Congress governments had
claimed would happen (spoiling of relations with several countries, and
mass commotion in India) if the Netaji’s files were declassified has
happened! Indians were being fooled all along. Was it that the Congress did
not wish its governments and leaders to be exposed?
Congress/Nehru's Crash Claim
It was claimed that Netaji Subhas had perished in a plane crash in Taipei
on 18 August 1945; and that his ashes are enshrined in Tokyo's Renkoji
temple. This was the version accepted by Nehru and the Congress, and was
the conclusion of the first two Enquiry Commissions on Netaji, who had
conveniently endorsed the government's position.
Reportedly, a Mitsubishi Ki-21 heavy bomber took off from Saigon
airport at 2 pm on 17 August 1945. The bomber was being used for
transportation, but it had no seats (it didn't have parachutes either).
Passengers had to squat on floor on cushions. Inside the bomber were 13
people, including Bose and Lt Gen Tsunamasa Shidei of the Imperial
Japanese Army. Bose was accompanied by his ADC and INA's Deputy
Chief of Staff Lt Colonel Habibur Rahman.
The plane landed for refuelling in Taihoku, Formosa (now Taipei,
Taiwan), after an overnight halt in Vietnam. Moments after the flight took
off after refuelling on 18 August 1945, passengers heard a loud ‘bang’.
Ground crew saw the portside engine fall off, and the plane crashed. The
pilots and Lt Gen Shidei died instantly. Rahman, who miraculously
survived, recalled that Netaji was doused in a splash of petrol when the
plane crashed, and his clothes subsequently caught fire. Netaji was badly
burnt, was taken to hospital, but passed away a few hours later, unable to
survive his burn-injuries.
But, is the above story true?
Why Crash Claim Appears Dubious
No Official Confirmation by India or Britain
Though Nehru had repeatedly reiterated the crash-claim, there was no
official confirmation either by Britain (in power then) or by the subsequent
Indian government.
“You ask me to send you proof of the death of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose.
I cannot send you any precise and direct proof.”
—Nehru to Suresh Bose in 1962.
Dead Body?
How come Netaji’s other colleagues, who were to follow him on another
flight, never saw his body? Why were no photographs taken of Netaji’s
injured state or his body in the hospital? Why was no death certificate
issued?
Biography of an INA recruiting officer
An article in Mumbai Mirror of 28 August 2005 titled Nehru ditched
Bose!{Art}, based on a biography of Dr VJ Dhanan, an INA recruiting
officer, says that Bose had not died in that so-called air-crash on 18 August
1945 in Taiwan. The story was a concoction by the Japanese to keep Bose
safe in exile. Soviet diplomats had claimed that Bose was in Russia.
Letter from Bose to Nehru & Letter by Nehru to Attlee
Reportedly, Viceroy Wavell had mentioned that Nehru had received a
letter from Bose after the date of his reported death.
As per the submission made by one Mr Shyamlal Jain of Meerut to the
Khosla Commission, that was setup in 1970, he was called by Nehru to Asif
Ali’s residence with typewriter on 26/27 December 1945, and was given a
letter to type—the following letter:{Nag}{URL56}
Mr Clements Attlee
British Prime Minister
10 Downing Street,
London
Dear Mr Attlee,
I understand from most reliable source that Subhas Chandra Bose, your
war criminal, has been allowed to enter Russian territory by Stalin. This is
a clear treachery and betrayal of faith by the Russians as Russia has been
an ally of the British-Americans, which she should not have done.
Please take care of it and do what you consider proper and fit.
Yours sincerely,
Jawaharlal Nehru
The above letter is a proof Bose did not die in the air-crash, and that
Nehru knew it! What is, however, worth noting and shocking are the use of
words “...Bose, your war criminal...” by Nehru in the above letter. Clearly
show Nehru's disdain for Netaji and his insulting attitude. For Nehru, Bose
was not a patriot who gave his all to the nation, he was a war criminal,
meant to be treated as such!
Sardar Patel's Response
Ahmed Jaffer asked Sardar Patel, the then Home Minister in the Interim
Government, on 31 October 1946 meeting whether the government had
evidence on the death of Bose. Patel's laconic reply was: “No!” When
pressed further, Patel replied: “The government are not in a position to
make any authoritative statement on the subject.” When Patel was
confronted with Nehru's definitive statement that Bose had died, Patel
reiterated that the government had no view in the matter either way.
Claims of Netaji's Close Relatives
Sarat Chandra Bose, the elder brother of Netaji, broke his two-year
silence—during which he had been investigating the matter—over the
reported-death of Netaji, by stating in late 1947: “Subhash is alive and
Jawaharlal knows it.” Sarat lived with this conviction till his death in 1950.
Emilie Schenkl, Netaji's wife, refused to buy the story of ‘death by plane
crash’. Indeed, Emilie was so much against the said story that she refused to
meet Pranab Mukherjee in 1995, the then External Affairs Minister (now
the President), when he had approached her to discuss the possibility of
transferring Subhas’s ‘ashes’ from Tokyo's Renkoji temple to India.
JMC's Categorical Statement
Report: “The Taiwan Government has informed the one-man Netaji
Commission of Inquiry that there was no air crash at Taihoku on August 18,
1945, till date believed to have killed Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose.
Disclosing this to newspersons after a routine hearing of the [Justice
Mukherjee] Commission [JMC] here, Justice M K Mukherjee said that the
Taiwan Government has confirmed to the Commission during its recent
visit to that country that no plane crashed at Taihoku between August 14
and September 20, 1945.”{URL57}
Declassified Files on Snooping
Most of the 64 files declassified by the West Bengal government on 18
September 2015 relate to snooping on the family members of Netaji. Their
contents clearly establish that the Indian government as well as several
foreign governments connected with Netaji believed Subhas was still alive,
and that he had not perished in the plane-crash.
Enquiry Commissions
(1) Shah Nawaj Committee (SNC) or Netaji Inquiry Committee (NIC),
1956
“I have no doubt in my mind—I did not have it then and I have no doubt
today of the fact of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose’s death... There can be no
enquiry about that.”
—Nehru in reply to a question put in the Parliament by HV Kamath on 5
March 1952.
“I am quite clear in my own mind that all the enquiries we could make have
been made and the result is a conviction that Shri Subhas Chandra Bose
died as has been stated. There is an abundance of evidence on this, which I
consider convincing. In the circumstances, I see absolutely no justification
of appointing a commission to make further enquiries.”
—Nehru, 1953.
“You ask me to send you proof of the death of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose.
I cannot send you any precise and direct proof.”
—Nehru to Suresh Bose in 1962.
Nehru did his best for a decade to stall all enquiries into the death of
Netaji. But, when he could fend it off no longer, he decided to set up a
committee that would give a report as he desired. A committee headed by
Shah Nawaz Khan (24 January 1914 9 December 1983), a Congress MP
and a former Lieutenant Colonel of INA, was appointed in 1956. Its other
members were SN Maitra, ICS, nominated by the West Bengal
Government, and Suresh Chandra Bose, a non-political elder brother of
Netaji. The committee came to be known as the Shah Nawaj Committee
(SNC) or the Netaji Inquiry Committee (NIC).
NIC interviewed 67 witnesses in India, Japan, Thailand, and Vietnam
between April and July 1956. The interviewees included the reported
survivors of the alleged plane crash, one of whom was INA's Lt Colonel
Habibur Rahman, who had since joined the Pakistan military establishment.
Two members of the NIC, Shah Nawaz Khan and SN Maitra, concluded
Bose had died in the plane crash. However, Suresh Chandra Bose, the third
member, differed, did not believe so and submitted a dissenting note. He
claimed that certain crucial evidence was withheld from him, and that he
was pressurized by the other members and also by the then WB Chief
Minister BC Roy to sign the final report. Suresh Bose alleged: “My
colleagues, both connected with the Government, have tried their utmost to
secure and manipulate the evidence, so that it could easily conform with the
Prime Ministers statements.”
Incidentally, Shah Nawaz Khan held various ministerial posts between
1952 and 1977. Was he bought over?
(2) Khosla Commission 1970-74
Owing to persistent doubts and pressure from many quarters, a one-man
commission of enquiry headed by a retired Chief Justice of the Punjab High
Court, GD Khosla, was set up in 1970. It submitted its report in 1974. The
delay was on account of other duties assigned to GD Khosla.
Justice Khosla concurred with the earlier report of the Shah Nawaz
Committee on the main facts of Bose's death.
Justice Mukherjee Commission (please see below) was dismayed by the
sheer negligence of the Khosla Commission in omitting to pursue several
crucial leads Dr Satyanarain Sinha (details later below) had provided to
unravel the Netaji mystery.
(3) Justice Mukherjee Commission (JMC) of Inquiry 1999-2005
Justice Mukherjee Commission of Inquiry was set up in 1999 during the
Vajpayee's NDA regime, following a Calcutta High Court Order. It was
headed by a retired Supreme Court Judge Manoj Kumar Mukherjee. The
commission studied hundreds of files on Bose's death drawn from several
countries and visited Japan, Russia and Taiwan. It submitted its report in
2005.
The Commission's conclusions/recommendations were several:
(1)The oral accounts on the plane crash were not reliable.
(2)Bose had NOT died in the alleged plane-crash. Thanks to the
cooperation extended by Taiwan, it could be confirmed by the JMC that no
air-crash took place on 18 August 1945! The US state department too had
corroborated the fact of no air-crash in Taiwan on that day.
(3)The plane-crash was a ruse to allow safe escape of Bose by Japan and
Taiwan. There was a secret plan to ensure Bose's safe passage to the USSR
with the knowledge of the Japanese authorities and Habibur Rahman (who
had testified on the plane crash).
As per the Report: “...On a conspectus of all the facts and circumstances
relevant to the above issues it stands established that emplaning at Saigon
on August 17, 1945 Netaji succeeded in evading the Allied Forces and
escaping out of their reach and as a camouflage thereof the entire make-
believe story of the air crash, Netaji’s death therein and his cremation was
engineered by the Japanese army authorities including the two doctors and
Habibur Rahman and then aired on August 23, 1945...”
(4)The Indian government subsequently came to know of the escape, but
chose to suppress the report.
(5)The ashes kept at the Renkoji temple in Japan, reported to be Bose's,
were of Ichiro Okura, a Japanese soldier who died of cardiac arrest.
(6)JMC asked for a thorough probe into the so-called Russian
connection that contends that Bose had been detained in a Siberian camp.
(7)JMC couldn't find any evidence that “Gumnami Baba”/Bhagwanji, a
monk who lived in Faridabad until his death in 1985, was Bose in disguise.
(However, later Justice Mukherjee had commented: “It is my personal
feeling…But I am 100 per cent sure that he (the monk) is Netaji.")
The Action Taken Report (ATR) was tabled in the Parliament on 17
May 2006 during UPA-I by Minister of State for Home S Regupathy along
with the JMC Report. The ATR mentioned, inter alia, that the government
had examined the Commission's report submitted to it on 8 November 2005
"in detail and has not agreed with the findings that Netaji did not die in a
plane crash and the ashes in the Renkoji Temple were not of Netaji." As
such, the Commission's report was rejected by the government without
assigning any specific reasons.
Reportedly, the Commission did not receive cooperation from either the
Indian government or the foreign countries it visited, except Taiwan. The
hostile posture of the British, Russian, Japanese and Indian governments
was intriguing and indicative of an international conspiracy to suppress the
truth. The Indian government refused to share many important files and
documents with the JMC under the pretext of them being sensitive.
Disappointed, the JMC was forced to submit its unfinished work to the then
Congress home minister Shivraj Patil.
If didn't die in air-crash,
What happened to Netaji?
The alternate conjecture is that Netaji had actually escaped to Russia.
It has been alleged that the Indian government and its political
leadership were aware that it was likely that Netaji was alive and in
captivity in USSR, but chose to ignore the information, and perhaps even
actively collaborated to suppress the information after independence.
It is believed by many that Netaji breathed his last in Soviet custody
years after the alleged crash in Taiwan.
Satyanarain Sinha's Surmise
Who was Dr Satyanarain Sinha?
Born in Chhapra, Bihar in 1910, Dr. Satyanarain Sinha was a member of
the Constituent Assembly of India. He was a Congress MP elected to the
Lok Sabha in 1952, 1957, 1962 and 1967 from Bihar. He had been the
Minister of Parliamentary Affairs.
Sinha sailed for Europe in 1930, and studied medicine in Vienna. He
had an adventurous life. Reportedly, he had also once stayed at Sorrento
near Naples with Maxim Gorky. He was fluent in several foreign languages,
including German and Russian. He was a staff captain in the Soviet Army
for two years during 1932-34; and also served as an interpreter for six
months in Siberia where he befriended many Russian and German spies. He
had joined Mussolini’s forces, and fought on the side of the Italians in the
battle of 1935-36 in Ethiopia against the Allies.
He returned to India in 1936. After 1947, on behalf of the Indian
government, he worked as an informal secret agent, and travelled to
Germany, Italy, France and Yugoslavia. He joined IFS (Indian Foreign
Service) in 1950, and served as First Secretary in the Indian legation in
Berne, Switzerland. He resigned from IFS after 2 years and became an MP.
Sinha's Statements/Testimony
In an article in the Anand Bazar Patrika, Sinha, upon his return from
Taiwan in 1964, had stated his reasons for concluding why the reported
Bose plane-crash had not really happened.
Sinha had also published a book Netaji Mystery in September 1966.
Here are some extracts from the same:
“A number of friends ask: ‘Even if we take it for granted that Netaji did
not die in plane-crash, what is the use of your reviving Netaji affairs if he is
not returning to us in any case?’
“...Concerning Netaji, such questions amount to an expression of
betrayal to him...
“One of my lawyer friends, a distinguished member of the Parliament,
whom I asked to raise Netaji's question from the floor of the House, and to
demand that (Prime Minister) Mr (Lal Bahadur) Shastri should make
enquiries about him during his coming visit to Russia, was taken aback by
my extraordinary request. He retorted: ‘Since Subhas Babu did not turn up
amongst us for so many years, in the eyes of law he must be considered
definitely dead, and thus, the Netaji affair cannot be reopened.’...
“…As the things stand today, not to enquire about Netaji's fate in Russia
will be a blunder of national magnitude with far reaching consequence.
Posterity will never forgive us for such a criminal negligence in the affairs
of a national hero of the highest order...”
Sinha had also deposed before the Khosla Commission. Here are some
extracts:
Khosla Commission: I want you to be more specific about this
information which you received. Who gave you the information and what
were the exact words used by him as far as you can remember?
Sinha: Kuzlov was the name of the man who was connected with the
training of Indians till 1934. The same man was later treated by Stalin as a
Trotskyist and sent to Yakutsk prison. From there, after the war, he had
come back. I met him in Moscow. He said that he had seen Bose in Cell No.
45 in Yakutsk.
Khosla Commission: Did he name Bose or did he say some important
Indian?
Sinha: He knew Bose. He had been a Soviet agent in India in 30s. He
had met Bose in Calcutta and he knew his residence.
Sinha deposed to the Commission that in a meeting with Nehru on 13
April 1950, he had given Nehru the information on Bose, but Nehru was
disinterested. He had broached the matter again with Nehru on 16 January
1951 in Paris, but to no avail.
Sinha told the Commission that he was making the charges “with full
responsibility", and he suspected the government didn't want matters
regarding Bose to see the light of the day.
Justice Mukherjee Commission was dismayed by the sheer negligence
of the Khosla Commission in omitting to pursue several crucial leads Sinha
had provided to unravel the Netaji mystery. Or, was it deliberate?
Yakutsk Prison, Siberia:
World’s Coldest & Harshest Prison Camp
As mentioned above, Subhas was perhaps sent to Yakutsk prison by
Stalin. There were many camps, known as Gulags, each with 500-1000
prisoners of war or political dissidents living with minimal facilities, in
Yakutsk by the river Lena in Siberia. Most of the captives couldn’t survive
the harsh weather and primitive living conditions, and died building new
shafts for coal mines, roads, dams, and so on, for which they were deployed
in that coldest city on earth.
Did Dr Radhakrishnan know?
There is also a startling report—unconfirmed—that India's the then
ambassador to Russia, Dr S Radhakrishnan, was permitted to see Netaji
from a distance in an undisclosed location in the Soviet Union. The details
are not known.
In his book ‘Back from Dead’{AD2} Anuj Dhar mentions that reportedly
“the Ambassador was then taken to one of the labour camps in Siberia and
he saw Bose from a distance of 10 metres. On his return, the Ambassador
filed a report to the Prime Minister.” As per the book, many witnesses
before Khosla Commission charged that Radhakrishnan and his predecessor
Vijaylakshmi Pandit knew something about Bose’s presence in the USSR.
Incidentally, Radhakrishnan was proposed by Nehru as India’s first Vice
President—a post that did not exist then as per the Constitution—upon his
return from Russia. Radhakrishnan also became the first Bharat Ratna
awardee.
Dr Satyanarain Sinha (for details, please see above) had also worked as
an interpreter to Dr Radhakrishnan at Geneva. Dr Radhakrishnan was later
ambassador to the USSR. Sinha had claimed that he had raised the issue of
Netaji with Dr Radhakrishnan. Said Sinha: “He (Radhakrishnan) warned
me that I should not meddle in these things. I asked him why. Then he said
‘you will be spoiling your career, you will not be anywhere’.”
Yadav's Statement
Anuj Dhar says in ‘India’s Biggest Cover-up’{AD}: “Wrinkles of angst
and helplessness formed on former Ministry of External Affairs officer Rai
Singh Yadav’s battered face as he thought back to the time when a Russian
diplomat in Europe had teased him. ‘Your Quisling was with us!’ [meaning
Netaji Subhas]...Our people did not wish to disturb relations. They knew
Netaji was in Siberia. He had been left out in the cold!”
Sarkar's Testimony in JMC
Anuj Dhar also mentions about one Mr Ardhendu Sarkar, a post
graduate in mechanical engineering from the UK, who had been to USSR in
1962, as an employee of HEC—Heavy Engineering Corporation. His senior
at the Plant in Ukraine was one Zerovin, a German, who had been brought
to USSR in 1947 and was sent to Siberia for indoctrination. Zerovin told
Sarkar that he had met Subhas Bose in a gulag there, where some VIPs had
been lodged, and had even talked to him. When Sarkar brought this to the
notice of the Indian Embassy in Moscow, he was asked to keep shut, mind
his own business, and forget what he had heard. Thereafter, out of fear,
Sarkar, never opened his mouth till his children grew up and were settled.
Breaking his long silence, Sarkar testified before the Mukherjee
Commission in 2000, and detailed the whole incident in Russia.
Mudie's Report
An interesting article on the web says: “...On August 23, 1945, the home
member of the Indian government, Sir R.F.Mudie prepared a report (Ref:
Top Secret Letter no. 57 dated 23 August 1945) as to how to handle Netaji.
It was addressed to Sir E.Jenkins. The viceroy submitted this report to the
English cabinet. ‘Russia may accept Bose under special circumstances. If
that is the case, we shouldn’t demand him back’ was the cabinet’s decision
on this. After considering this, the British Prime Minister Clements Attlee
decided ‘Let him remain where he is now’. This decision was taken in
October 1945. It clearly indicates that he was alive even in October 1945,
much after the reported death in an air-crash on 18 August 1945. In 1946,
Nehru met Mountbatten in Singapore. On no occasion after this meeting,
Nehru has been reported of praising the INA. He had agreed to the demand
from the Indians in Singapore to place wreath and flowers at Netaji’s martyr
dome there, but withdrew quite dramatically on the 11th hour...”
Usman Patel's Statement to Khosla Commission
Usman Patel, Netaji’s bodyguard, told the Khosla Commission in 1971
that Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, Mohammad Ali Jinnah and
Maulana Azad had come to an agreement with the British that if Netaji
were to enter India, he would be handed over and charged. Patel told
Khosla that Maulana Azad had confirmed this to him. Incidentally, Usman
Patel was not allowed to depose before the first commission of enquiry on
Netaji: Shah Nawaz Commission.
No Efforts to Locate Subhas!
The sad part is why no efforts were made to bring Bose back, if indeed
he was with the Russians?
Requests of many countries for their missing persons had been
repeatedly stonewalled by USSR, but they finally extracted the required
information through sheer persistence and diplomatic pressure. In sharp
contrast, rather than USSR, it was India itself, its Congress Governments
from Nehru downwards, which stonewalled even making requests to the
Russians. When Dr Satyanarayan Sinha implored Nehru at a diplomatic
gathering to informally raise the Bose-issue with the Soviet ambassador,
Nehru dismissed the suggestion as “talk of chandukhana” [gossip in a den
of opium addicts].
India's Independence :
Thanks Mainly to Subhas/INA
Comments Narendra Singh Sarila in his book, “The Shadow of the
Great Game: The Untold Story of India’s Partition”: “In South-east Asia,
Bose blossomed, and,...played an important role in demoralizing the British
military establishment in India. Indeed, it is a toss-up whether Gandhiji’s or
Bose’s influence during the period 1945-46—even after Bose’s death—
played a more important role in destabilizing British rule in India.”
An article on the web states: “Later, Atlee, in a private visit to Calcutta,
told the Governor of Bengal that it was Bose who brought independence to
India.” There are reasonable grounds to believe that the Subhas Bose INAs
military onslaught on the British and the INA Red Fort trials of 1945-46
and its consequence were a major factor in the British decision to quit India,
and not the Quit India movement of Congress.
“You have fulfilled a noble task by persuading Dr. Majumdar to write
this history of Bengal and publishing it ... In the preface of the book Dr.
Majumdar has written that he could not accept the thesis that Indian
independence was brought about solely, or predominantly by the non-
violent civil disobedience movement of Gandhi. When I was the acting
Governor, Lord Atlee, who had given us independence by withdrawing the
British rule from India, spent two days in the Governor's palace at Calcutta
during his tour of India. At that time I had a prolonged discussion with him
regarding the real factors that had led the British to quit India. My direct
question to him was that since Gandhi's ‘Quit India’ movement had tapered
off quite some time ago and in 1947 no such new compelling situation had
arisen that would necessitate a hasty British departure, why did they have to
leave? In his reply Atlee cited several reasons, the principal among them
being the erosion of loyalty to the British Crown among the Indian army
and navy personnel as a result of the military activities of Netaji. Toward
the end of our discussion I asked Atlee what was the extent of Gandhi's
influence upon the British decision to quit India. Hearing this question,
Atlee's lips became twisted in a sarcastic smile as he slowly chewed out the
word, ‘m-i-n-i-m-a-l!’”
—Chief justice P.B. Chakrabarty of Calcutta High Court, who had also
served as the acting Governor of West Bengal in India, in his letter
addressed to the publisher of Dr. R.C. Majumdar's book “A History of
Bengal”.
The Chief Justice also wrote: “Apart from revisionist historians, it was
none other than Lord Clement Atlee himself, the British Prime Minster
responsible for conceding independence to India, who gave a shattering
blow to the myth sought to be perpetuated by court historians, that Gandhi
and his movement had led the country to freedom.”
To the above one can add two more reasons: (a)Indian Naval Mutiny of
1946 and Jabalpur Army Mutiny of 1946, both provoked partially by the
INA trials, convincing the British that they could no longer trust the Indian
Army to suppress Indians, and continue to rule over them. (b)The
precarious economic condition of the UK as a consequence of WW-II, and
the maintenance of their colonies becoming a huge drag on the UK
exchequer.
Therefore, in gaining independence for the country, the credit has to go
to Netaji Bose—far more than to Gandhi or the Congress. Nehru figures
much lower. True to Nehru-Gandhi tradition, however, only Quit India
Movement is highlighted as the cause of independence—which is a lie.
That happened in 1942—many, many years prior to grant of independence
—and fizzled out in mere months.
But, look at the ungrateful nation brought up on the Nehru-Indira culture
of giving importance only to self—the dynasty: no importance is attached to
non-dynasty greats. They give importance to Gandhiji too, because, one,
they can’t afford to ignore him, two, it was Gandhiji who undemocratically
and unfairly favoured Nehru and ensured he became prime minister upon
independence.
There is no memorial to Subhas Bose in the capital! And, what to speak
of memorials or samadhis, Nehru-Gandhis refused to even put Netaji Bose’s
portrait in the Central House of the Parliament, that had portraits of other
leaders.
As per an article on the web, in a confidential memo dated 11 February
1949 under the signature of Major General P N Khandoori the government
recommended: “The photos of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose be not
displayed at prominent places, Unit Lines, Canteens, Quarter Guards or
Recreation rooms.”
Congress/Nehru's Vested Interest
in Non-Return of Netaji
Some say that although Nehru camouflaged the act under the pretentions
of his lofty principles of being anti-fascist, he knew that if Subhas returned,
his [Nehru’s] position would greatly suffer. Everyone respected and
admired the guts of Subhas Chandra Bose.
If Subhas had returned there was no way Nehru would have become the
prime minister. And, even if by hook or by crook, through the support of
Mahatma, he would have become PM, like he did by overriding Sardar
Patel, he would have been surely defeated by Subhas in the first elections of
1952, so popular was Subhas. He was also younger to Nehru.
Subhas & INA vs. Nehru & Congress
Congress had all through opposed Subhas and INA, but a lot is made of
Nehru donning his lawyers robes to fight for INA soldiers in their trial by
the British in 1945. The actual reality was that elections were imminent,
and INA and Bose being the people’s favourites, Congress and Nehru
wanted to get cheap popularity by projecting themselves as pro-INA to win
elections.
“The Government of India had hoped, by prosecuting members of the
INA, to reinforce the morale of the Indian army. It succeeded only in
creating unease, in making the soldiers feel slightly ashamed that they
themselves had supported the British. If Bose and his men had been on the
right side-and all India now confirmed that they were—then Indians in the
Indian army must have been on the wrong side. It slowly dawned upon the
Government of India that the backbone of the British rule, the Indian army,
might now no longer be trustworthy. The ghost of Subhas Bose, like
Hamlet's father, walked the battlements of the Red Fort (where the INA
soldiers were being tried), and his suddenly amplified figure overawed the
conference that was to lead to independence.”
—Michael Edwardes
"Last Years of British India"
Says Anuj Dhar in ‘India’s Biggest Cover-up’{AD}: “The British saw
through the Congressmen’s change of heart. Commander-in-Chief of British
Indian armed forces General Claude Auchinleck wrote to Field Marshal
Viscount Wavell on 24 November 1945 that ‘the present INA trials are
agitating all sections of Indian public opinion deeply and have also
provided the Congress with an excellent election cry.’...Captain Badhwar
reported that the Congress leaders’ turnaround had little to do with any
love for their ousted former president [Bose] or the people who fought
under his command...He [Asaf Ali—CWC member] travelled across India
and discovered that people were overwhelmingly in support of the INA.
‘This inflamed feeling forced Congress to take the line it did,’ Badhwar
said...Ali was positive that as and when Congress came to power, they
‘would have no hesitation in removing all INA from the Services and even
in putting some of them to trial.’...The top Congress leadership’s duplicitous
disapproval of Bose and INA was exposed by numerous pre-1947
statements made by its leaders, especially Nehru.”
As expected from Nehru and the Congress, rather that honouring and
rewarding them, the INA-veterans were debarred from the Indian Army by
the Government of independent India! Why? Because, that was the way the
British and Mountbatten wanted, as INA soldiers had fought against them.
And, Nehru being an anglophile and being indebted to Mountbatten, did
their bidding. That was in sharp contrast to Jinnah who had inducted
Muslim INA soldiers into the Pakistani army. The INA personnel remained
ineligible for the Freedom Fighters Pension till 1972.
Captain Ram Singh Thakur (1914–2002) was an INA soldier of Nepali
origin. He was also a musician and a composer. His famous patriotic
compositions include "Kadam Kadam Badhaye Ja, khushi geet gāē jā, yē
zīndagi hai qâum kī, qâum lūtāē jā..." and "Subh Sukh Chain". His
final years were difficult. He was also initially denied the status of a
freedom fighter by the government.
Was ‘Bhagwanji’ or ‘Gumnami Baba’ Subhas?
Gumnami Baba, aka Bhagwanji, was a monk who lived in Lucknow,
Faizabad, Sitapur, Basti and Ayodhya in UP for over 30 years till his death
on 16 September 1985. He maintained contact with Dr Pavitra Mohan Roy,
the former top Secret Service agent of the INA.
Personal effects (German binoculars, Gold-rimmed spectacles identical
to that of Subhas, Bengali books, the original copy of the summons issued
to Suresh Chandra Bose to appear before the Khosla Commission, an album
containing family photographs of Netaji Subhas, newspaper clippings about
Netaji’s ‘death’ probe, letters from Netaji’s followers, and so on) left behind
by Bhagwanji seem to indicate he was perhaps Bose himself!
The Mukherjee Commission had referred the handwriting samples of
Bhagwanji and Bose to Dr B Lal, a forensic expert. His report was that the
two matched! Although the Mukherjee Commission could not get any
definite evidence to establish Gumnami baba was indeed Netaji, Justice
Mukherjee personally believed it to be so, as he admitted later.
Bhagwanji's birth date was 23rd January, the same as Netaji's. It appears
that Bhagwanji might indeed have been Netaji, though it’s a mystery why
he chose to remain “Gumnami”, and why the state and central governments
of the day allowed such a state of affairs!
Lal Bahadur Shastri's Mysterious Death inter-related with Unravelling
Netaji's Mystery?
Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri died on 11 January 1966 at
Tashkent, then in the USSR, where he had gone for Indo-Pak talks with the
president of Pakistan, General Ayub Khan. Though he reportedly died of
heart attack, his death was shrouded in mystery. Apparently, no post-
mortem was conducted to ascertain the real cause of death either in the
USSR or in India—and that was abnormal. It has been alleged that he died
of poisoning, as his body, when brought to India, had turned blue—
although that might have been so from embalming. His last meal in the
night was sent from the home of TN Kaul, the Indian ambassador. Shastri’s
family suspected foul play.
Request for access to papers relating to Shastri’s death under the RTI
(Right to Information Act) have been turned down—that raises further
suspicion. There appears to be an undisclosed policy not to disclose
anything that might in any small or big way impact the Dynasty.
On 2 October 2015, the birth anniversary of late Lal Bhahdur Shastri,
the family members of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose pressed for
declassification of files on Shastriji, kept in India and Russia to unravel the
mystery of his death.
“Lal Bahadur Shastri was one of the greatest sons of India and certainly
one of the best prime ministers India ever had! It is unfortunate that he
passed away at Tashkent on January 11, 1966, under mysterious
circumstances. Till today the truth has been hidden from the nation,”
Netaji's grand-nephew Chandra Kumar Bose said on a Facebook post.
Chandra Kumar Bose said in his post that “Lal Bahadur Shastri had
promised Amiya Nath Bose, Netaji's nephew, in Kolkata on 23 December
1965, that during his visit to Russia, he would try to find out whether Netaji
was in Russia.” Further, Shastriji had also promised Amiya Nath Bose he
would set up a proper inquiry commission on Netaji Subhas upon his return
from Russia in January 1966.
Is it possible that Shastriji's mysterious death in Tashkent, then in the
USSR, is in some way inter-related with his knowledge on Netaji's death in
Russia, and his planned further probe in the matter?
Unanswered Questions
Of course, one could question if weightage can be given to the various
reports on Bose, unless the same are authoritatively confirmed. Much of the
confusion and suspicions are on account of the government being too
secretive. Why not share the information with the public. It would help
remove doubts, and check circulation of wild rumours.
There are certainly many things that are queer, and unless the
Government comes clean on them, and makes full disclosure, along with all
the relevant documents, doubts would persist.
There are far too many unanswered questions. For example:
On Plane-crash.
Why was Nehru so assertive about the death of Bose in the crash, when
conclusive evidence was missing, and many other aspects had come to
light?
Indifference to truth on Netaji.
Why Nehru’s Government made no attempt to search for Netaji and try
and get him back?
Why the Indian Government itself did not take an initiative to get at the
truth through Britain, Russia, Japan, China and Taiwan? Or, was it
deliberate? They knew the facts, but didn't wish them to become public.
Ignoring/Belittling Netaji.
Why Nehru and Indira didn't allow even the putting up of portrait of
Netaji in Parliament?
Why Nehru and Indira tried their best to ensure NO importance was
accorded to Netaji?
Why the Nehru-Indira dynasty never thought it fit to award Bharat
Ratna to Netaji?
Ignoring INA's Role.
Why the INA soldiers were NOT absorbed in the Indian Army? (Even
Pakistan had done so.)
Why the contribution of INA to India's freedom not acknowledged?
Why the INA soldiers not rewarded?
Not just not rewarded, why were some of them even harassed by the
government?
Reluctance to set-up Enquiry Commissions. “Managing”/Ignoring their
Reports.
Why Nehru’s Government tried its best to stall an enquiry? When you
read Anuj Dhars India’s Biggest Cover-up{AD} you are amazed by the road-
blocks Nehru put up and the way he dragged his feet on setting up a
Commission of Enquiry. When, under public pressure, Government did set
up an enquiry commission, why did it try to influence its outcome, and
made sure it said what the Government wanted it to say? Why Shah Nawaz
behaved in a partisan manner? Why manipulate a Commission you have
agreed to setup? Why was Suresh Bose allegedly offered monetary
incentives, and even Governorship, to desist from dissenting from the Shan
Nawaz Report? Why Shah Nawaz and the other government officials on
the Committee suddenly turned hostile towards Suresh Bose the moment
they came to know that he would submit a dissenting report—asking him to
even vacate the Committee’s office?
When the Home Ministry admitted before Khosla Commission of
Enquiry that about 30 classified papers and files on Subhas Bose were
either missing or destroyed, including a file titled "Investigation into the
Circumstances Leading to the Death of Subhas Chandra Bose", why Justice
Khosla chose not to pursue the case of the missing files?
Further, why did Justice Khosla ignore the crucial leads provided by Dr
Satyanarain Sinha? (Justice Mukherjee Commission was dismayed by the
sheer negligence of the Khosla Commission in omitting to pursue several
crucial leads Dr Satyanarain Sinha had provided to unravel the Netaji
mystery.)
Why the 2005-report of the third enquiry setup under the Court Order
was rejected by the Congress when it came to power, without assigning any
reasons?
If indeed Gumnami Baba (Bhagwanji) was Netaji:
How come the government took no steps to ascertain the truth when
Bhagwanji was alive? Or, in case it did, why has it been secretive about it?
What was the government’s relationship with Bhagwanji?
Why nothing was done to get at the truth even after Bhagwanji’s death,
especially after personal effects of the deceased pointed to his being
perhaps Netaji? And, in case the truth was already known or was found out,
why was it not made public? Why was Bhagwanji not rehabilitated or
welcomed as Netaji? Why were even his relatives kept in the dark?
Why did Bhagwanji prefer to remain unknown or ”Gumnami”? What
were his constraints that he didn't wish to reveal his real self?
How could such a tragedy unfold for one of the greatest sons of India,
even as his compatriots and political leaders remained mute, indifferent
witnesses for decades?
Snooping.
Doesn't snooping, now proven through the declassified documents,
reveal a sinister plan to suppress the truth on Netaji?
Shouldn't the accountability be formally established?
Shouldn't the wrong-doing be formally recorded as part of our recent
official history?
In case Netaji had NOT died in the plane-crash:
Who all knew that to be the case?
Did they include Nehru? Gandhiji? Dr Radhakrishnan? Who else?
If yes, why did they suppress the fact?
What was their compulsion?
What were their motives?
NEHRU & NETAJIS STOLEN WAR CHEST
No Indian leader could raise as much amount in the 20th century as
Netaji Subhas did for India’s freedom. He appealed to the patriotism of an
estimated two million Indians in erstwhile British colonies conquered by his
Japanese allies for donations to finance his government-in-exile and the
Indian National Army (INA). Netaji’s personality, his emotive speeches and
his unswerving commitment to Indian independence moved the diaspora.
Numerous housewives gave away their gold in the cause of freedom.
Reportedly, one Habib Sahib gifted all his property of over a crore of
rupees; and VK Chelliah Nadar, a Rangoon-based businessman and an INA
funder, deposited Rs 42 crores and 2,800 gold coins in the Azad Hind
Bank!
After Rangoon, where Azad Hind Bank was headquartered, fell to the
Allies in 1945, Netaji retreated to Bangkok on 24 April 1945 carrying with
him the treasury, including gold bars and ornaments, in steel boxes. Japan
surrendered to the Allied Powers on 15 August 1945, and the 40,000-strong
INA followed suit. On 18 August 1945 Netaji boarded a Japanese bomber
in Saigon bound for Manchuria, carrying the INA treasure, along with his
aide Habibur Rahman. The plane reportedly crashed in Taiwan. The
retrieved treasure from the crash site was handed over by the Japanese army
to SA Ayer and M Rama Murti of the IIL (Indian Independence League—
which had come under Netaji) at Tokyo.
Local Indians in Tokyo suspected that Rama Murti and SA Ayer had
jointly defalcated the INA treasure—there was enough circumstantial
evidence. Inexplicably, India did nothing to get back the treasure, and rather
than setting up an enquiry or hauling up Murti and Aiyer, the government
absorbed Aiyer as a director of publicity with the Bombay state, while
Murti continued to lead an affluent life-style in Tokyo, in sharp contrast to
the devastation all around.
Sir Benegal Rama Rau, the first head of the Indian liaison mission in
Tokyo, wrote to the MEA (Ministry of External Affairs), headed by the PM
Nehru himself, in India on 4 December 1947 alleging that the INA treasure
had been embezzled by Murti. Strangely, the MEA responded it could not
be interested in the INA funds! It seems it wasn’t just a case of indifference,
it was much, much more than that.
KK Chettur, who headed the Tokyo mission/embassy during 1951-52,
took up the matter of misappropriation of the INA treasure vigorously.
(Incidentally, Jaya Jaitley is Chetturs daughter. She has penned an
excellent, worth-reading article “#NehruSnooped: Truth behind Netaji files”
in the connection in www.dailyo.in.{URL67}) In response, the government sent
SA Aiyer on a secret mission to Tokyo. He advised collection of the
retrieved treasury from Murti saying it was in his safe custody. Chettur
suspected Aiyer-Murti collusion in returning part amount just to close the
matter. He recommended to the government a thorough probe in the matter
on 22 June 1951. But, nothing came of it. The Indian embassy collected
whatever there was at Murti's residence as the INA treasure in October
1951. The same was secretly brought into India from Japan, and was also
inspected by Nehru who reportedly made a snide comment: “poor show”.
Nehru quoted from Aiyer's report in the parliament in 1952 affirming
Netaji’s death in an air crash in Taipei. Aiyer was later appointed adviser,
integrated publicity programme, for the Five Year Plan.
RD Sathe, an undersecretary in the MEA, wrote a two-page secret note
on 1 November 1951 titled “INA Treasures and their handling by Messrs
Iyer and Ramamurthi” pointing out the circumstances of the mysterious
disappearance of the massive INA treasure and the highly suspicious role of
Aiyar(Iyer)-Murti duo; and the token return of a paltry portion from it that
raised even more questions. Sathe’s note was signed by Jawaharlal Nehru
on 5 November 1951 in token of having read it. But, like the earlier notes of
Rau and Chettur, Sathe’s note too was just filed away by the Nehru’s
government. However, the matter refused to die.
The Indian ambassador in Tokyo, AK Dar, sent a four-page secret note
to the MEA in 1955 advocating a public inquiry into the matter of the
disappearance of the INA treasure. He opined that even if the government
was not able to get the treasure back, at least the culprits or the likely
culprits would be known. He further said that the government’s 10-year
long indifference in the matter had not only helped the guilty party escape,
but had done injustice to the great work and sacrifice of Netaji. Even the
Shah Nawaz Committee set up in 1956 to probe Netaji's disappearance had
recommended an inquiry into all the assets of Netaji's government-in-exile
including the INA treasure.
Yet Nehru did nothing! And, that’s baffling.
It was not a small amount. The total treasure, had it been recovered,
would have been worth several hundred crore rupees today. Was Nehru’s
government protecting the embezzlers? Why did Nehru’s government
accommodate a suspect embezzler SA Aiyar in the government service, and
even depute him on a secret mission, as mentioned above? Was Aiyars
report confirming death of Netaji a quid-pro-quo? Was Nehru afraid Aiyar-
Murti duo may spill the beans on the alleged fiction of Netaji’s death in the
air-crash if they were hauled up?
BELATED BHARAT RATNAS
Bose was awarded Bharat Ratna posthumously in 1992, which was later
withdrawn on a legal technicality, in response to a Supreme Court
directive: Government was asked to submit conclusive evidence of Netaji's
death—which it could not—on a PIL as to how the award could be
posthumous. However, the intriguing point is how come they thought of the
award to Netaji only in 1992—even though the amendment to give awards
posthumously was made in 1955 itself?
Like for Bose, Bharat Ratna was awarded even to Sardar Patel in 1991
and to Dr Ambedkar in 1990! And, that too because there were non-
Dynasty governments since December 1989—VP Singh, then Chandra
Shekhar, followed by Narsimha Rao.
Incidentally, Dr BR Ambedkar was declared as “The Greatest Indian
after Gandhi” in the Outlook–CNN-IBN–History18 TV Channel–BBC Poll,
the results of which were announced on 15 August 2012. Yet, he was given
Bharat Ratna only in 1990. In the Poll, while Ambedkar topped with
19,91,734 votes, Nehru, at the bottom at number 10, got just 9,921 votes!
To name a few more, Radhakrishnan was awarded Bharat Ratna in
1954, Rajaji in 1954, Nehru in 1955—when he was himself the PM, Govind
Ballabh Pant in1957, BC Roy in 1961, Zakir Hussain in 1963, Indira
Gandhi in 1971—when she was herself the PM, VV Giri in 1975, Kamaraj
in 1976, Vinoba Bhave in 1983, MGR in 1988, and Rajiv Gandhi in 1991!
But, Sardar Patel, Subhas Chandra Bose and Dr Ambedkar, being not as
great as these worthies (!!), got it later! The Dynasty did not like them!! It
has been that personal in our feudal democracy. Of course, the only unjust
thing that the Dynasty did was to have left out poor Sanjay Gandhi!
There were those who were more deserving to the many who got. For
example, why not to Verghese Kurien of the Amul fame? Narayan Murthy
has rightly remarked: “If our country does not stand up and salute
Dr Kurien with a Bharat Ratna, then I don’t know who deserves it more.”
That great man from Assam, Gopinath Bordoloi, despite his
achievements—far more than most of the Indian leaders, with the added
uniqueness that like Sardar Patel, who was instrumental in expanding the
Indian territory by about 40% by accession of the Indian Princely States,
Bordoloi helped expand India’s geographical boundary to Assam and the
Northeast—was not awarded Bharat Ratna by the successive Congress
Governments starting from Nehru, while many, not as deserving, got that
award. He had opposed Nehru—and for good reason. It was only when a
non-Congress government came to power that Bordoloi, a veteran
Congressman, was awarded the Bharat Ratna posthumously in 1999. That
was thanks to Atal Behari Vajpayee.
Non-dynasty greats can wait, may even die, there is no hurry.
Posthumously, Ambedkar got it in 1990, Sardar Patel in 1991, Netaji
Subhas Bose in 1992 and Bordoloi in 1999, when all the four of them
should have been the first to get it in 1954 when the award was introduced.
But, dynasty-scions, great or otherwise, can’t be made to wait: two allowed
themselves to be awarded Bharat Ratna when they were themselves in
power—Nehru in 1955 and Indira Gandhi in 1971—while Rajiv Gandhi
was awarded the same soon after his death in 1991!! When sounded for
Bharat Ratna, Maulana Azad declined and told Nehru it was totally
improper for those deciding on the awards to pin the medal on themselves!
Azad got it posthumously. There ought to be a provision to withdraw the
awards given if it is later found that those awarded did not really deserve it.
ILL-TREATMENT OF OTHERS
Readers may please refer to the authors other book “Nehru’s 97 Major
Blunders” available on Amazon.
DALITS & THE GREATEST INDIAN AFTER GANDHI
Little was done for dalits after independence. Even now the position is
pathetic. It is shameful how they are still treated. Nehru could have done
much if he wanted. It is not enough to pass laws if they are not
implemented in practice. Apart from reservations, precious little was done
to eradicate untouchability and ensure at-par and dignified treatment of
dalits and adivasis.
If the government had the will, things could have been very well tackled
within less than a decade of independence. But, given the unchanged
colonial-minded police and bureaucracy and the corrupt and indifferent, and
even casteist, politicians—whom Nehru did nothing to change—little could
have been expected. It is shameful Nehru’s failure has not yet been
rectified. It is both an economic and a social issue and must be fought with
all our might. All political parties must together work on this and all leaders
must set an example.
Chandra Bhan Prasad and Milind Kamble state something highly
notable in their article, “Manifesto to End Caste”, that appeared in the
Times of India, Mumbai of 23 January 2013. The obliteration of caste in a
major way would be when caste, that evolved from a feudal, rural setting,
transforms into class through capitalism, industrialisation, modernisation,
professionalization, mechanisation of agriculture, and urbanisation. Class is
not hereditary, there is no stigma attached to it, and one can move up or
down. They say, “Capital is the surest means to fight caste. In dalit’s hands,
capital becomes an anti-caste weapon...The manifesto demands that India
embraces capitalism publicly as its official ideology...” In a way, the
continued plight of dalits is thanks to the socialistic ways down which
Nehru took India.
Incidentally, it is odd why Nehru, who considered himself modern,
westernised, forward-looking, secular and above caste, allowed himself to
be called Panditji? There is an interesting episode of Nehru’s time—
available on the web in ToI—which illustrates how the upper caste Indian
leaders paid mere lip service to the amelioration of the lot of dalits, and how
insensitive they were to their pathetic condition. The story, in brief, is like
this. In a Scheduled Caste Conference held in Lucknow, presided by the
dalit leader Babu Jagjivan Ram, Nehru in his inaugural address said, among
other things, that those who do the menial job of carrying excreta were
greater than God. At this, Babu Jagjivan Ram got up immediately and
snapped back that having done the said job for ages, the Dalits had already
become Gods, and the castes to which Nehru and Gandhi belong should
now take up the said task and become Gods!
In an article ‘A Case For Bhim Rajya’{URL59} the author S Anand
describes a shocking incident. It appeared in the Outlook issue of 20 August
2012—a special issue on BR Ambedkar, after being declared “The Greatest
Indian After Gandhi” in the poll conducted in 2012 by the Outlook along
with the CNN-IBN and History18 TV Channels with BBC. It reads:
“Let us begin at the end, with one of the worst humiliations in
Ambedkars life, less than three months before his death. On September 14,
1956, exactly a month before he embraced Buddhism with half-a-million
followers in Nagpur, he wrote a heart-breaking letter to prime minister
Nehru from his 26, Alipore Road residence in Delhi. Enclosing two copies
of the comprehensive Table of Contents of his mnemonic opus, The Buddha
and His Dhamma, Ambedkar suppressed pride and sought Nehru’s help in
the publication of a book he had worked on for five years: ‘The cost of
printing is very heavy and will come to about Rs 20,000. This is beyond my
capacity, and I am, therefore, canvassing help from all quarters. I wonder if
the Government of India could purchase 500 copies for distribution among
the various libraries and among the many scholars whom it is inviting
during the course of this year for the celebration of Buddha’s 2,500 years’
anniversary. Ambedkar had perhaps gotten used to exclusion by then. The
greatest exponent of Buddhism after Asoka had ruthlessly been kept out of
this Buddha Jayanti committee presided over by S. Radhakrishnan, then
vice president...Worse, when Nehru replied to Ambedkar the next day, he
said that the sum set aside for publications related to Buddha Jayanti had
been exhausted, and that he should approach Radhakrishnan, chairman of
the commemorative committee. Nehru also offered some business advice,
gratuitously: ‘I might suggest that your books might be on sale in Delhi and
elsewhere at the time of Buddha Jayanti celebrations when many people
may come from abroad. It might find a good sale then.’ Radhakrishnan is
said to have informed Ambedkar on phone about his inability to help him.
“This is the vinaya that the prime minister and vice-president of the day
extended to the former law minister and chairperson of the drafting
committee of the Constitution. It was suggested with impertinence that
Ambedkar could set up a stall, hawk copies and recover costs...”
It is a shocking lack of grace and courtesy. Couldn’t they have spared a
few thousand for Ambedkars great works—when the Government could
spend lacs on all kind of sundry and selected and collected works of Nehru
and Gandhi. The Government had also refused to publish the collected or
selected works of two other great leaders: Sardar Patel and Subhas Bose.
The Ambedkar memorial in the capital is in bad shape. Writes Neha
Bhatt in an article ‘A Fall Into Sear And Yellow Leaf in the Outlook
magazine of 20 August 2012: “The untended grounds of 26, Alipur Road,
in New Delhi’s upscale Civil Lines neighbourhood, give a telling foretaste
of the overall neglect of the building. It’s hard to believe that this is the Dr
Ambedkar National Memorial, where the man spent his twilight years and
breathed his last. The visitors book here reveals more than the walls
themselves—scribbled in by the few visitors it receives, some all the way
from Maharashtra, Haryana, Gujarat, are urgent requests, not only for a
‘better memorial, but for basic amenities like fans, lights and some
ventilation.”
THE FAIR LADIES
Going by Alex Von Tunzelmann’s ‘Indian Summer: The Secret History
of the End of an Empire’ Nehru-Edwina affair, at least from Indian cultural
angle, does seem bizarre—bizarre in the sense that Mountbatten allowed the
brazen stuff. There can be nothing abnormal or bizarre in a man and a
woman loving each other. The normal situation is they are married to each
other, or both are unmarried, or both are divorcees. But, in a situation where
one is a widower, and the other is married, the social expectation is that the
one who is married would take a divorce, and then do as she pleases with
the other. The abnormal situation is where a married person knowingly
allows his wife to have affair with another. And, perhaps for political
reasons.
Going by several books and material on the web, while Mountbatten had
several affairs, Edwina was from a rich family, indulged herself, and had
many lovers—Nehru was one in that series. But, was Edwina very good
looking? Hardly, though she was white-skinned—something brown sahibs
bent down to.
Tunzelmann writes:
“…‘Please keep this to yourselves but she [Edwina] and Jawaharlal
are so sweet together,’ he [Mountbatten] wrote to his elder daughter,
Patricia. ‘They really dote on each other in the nicest way and
Pammy and I are doing everything we can to be tactful and help…
And so Edwina and Jawahar walked together among the wild
strawberry bushes during the days and drove with Pamela along
winding roads to the brightly lit town of Shimla in the
evenings...”{Tunz/323}
[In 1948] “…Nehru was officially received at Heathrow, but his first
action after that was to go to the Mountbattens’ small flat… For
Edwina, his midnight visit was ‘too lovely’. The very next day, she
drove him to Broadlands [Edwina’s secluded country house]. Dickie
tactfully ensured that he would be absent for much of the time at
Dartmouth… ‘Edwina will be awaiting you,’ he wrote to Jawahar.
The two of them [Nehru-Edwina], alone at last in the privacy of her
estate, were able to talk, laugh and cry together, to embrace and to
press each others hands on walks by the river. Even after Dickie
turned up, the weekend was a great success, so much so that
Jawahar changed his plans so that he might return the following
weekend as well…”{Tunz/337}
“…Whenever he [Nehru] was in Britain for a conference or
diplomatic visit, he would stay with Edwina at Broadlands. During
these sojourns, Dickie [Mountbatten] would remove himself to their
London address…”{Tunz/340}
“…‘Nehru in those days was having a roaring love affair with Lady
Mountbatten,’ added Bakhtiar, ‘said to be with the tacit approval of
Mountbatten.’” Further, “Jinnah had been handed a small collection
of letters that had been written by Edwina and Jawahar. ‘Dickie
[Mountbatten] will be out tonight—come after 10.00 o’clock,’ said
one of Edwina’s. Another revealed that ‘You forgot your
handkerchief and before Dickie could spot it I covered it up.’ A
third said ‘I have fond memories of Simla—riding and your
touch.’”{Tunz/208-9}
Incidentally, Jinnah did not use the letters.
One can always say, "So what?" Indeed so, for one is not raising a moral
issue—only flagging a relationship. And perhaps the relationship went
beyond the spiritual and the platonic—but that’s a conjecture, not
something definite and known. What is interesting is that it was not some
fleeting romance. It continued through the years, well past the
Independence, and right till her death. When she died in an Indonesian
Hotel in Borneo on 21 February 1960, a number of letters were found
strewn around her—said to be the love letters of Nehru!{Wolp2/474}
Wrote Nehru’s secretary M.O. ‘Mac’ Mathai:
“One thing that I could not fail to notice was that whenever Nehru
stood by the side of Lady Mountbatten, he had a sense of
triumph.”{Mac/209}
MO Mathai also wrote: “Once, at a reception at the India House in
London, to which Attlee and several other dignitaries came, Nehru stood in
a corner chatting with Lady Mountbatten all the while. Krishna Menon
turned to me and said that people were commenting on it and requested me
to break in so that Nehru could move about.”{Mac/14}
Wrote Rustamji:
“JN [Jawaharlal Nehru] had the typical Indian weakness of being
impressed by foreign women—white women—they were his
favourite.”{Rust/64}
“On a visit to Assam, he [Nehru] asked me to ensure that the
orchids he ordered in Shillong reached Lady Mountbatten in
London safely.”{Rust/39}
Osama Bin Laden was buried at sea by the Americans. Edwina too was
buried at sea, as per her will—a tribute to Mountbatten’s naval career.
British frigate Wakeful which carried her body to the sea off Spithead, a
channel off southern England, was escorted by an Indian frigate Trishul—
such importance India gave her. Contrast this with the treatment meted out
to Sardar Patel, Netaji Subhas, Dr Ambedkar and Dr Rajendra Prasad by
Nehru after their death—that we covered earlier!
Stanley Wolpert personally watched Edwina and Nehru together at a
function in New Delhi, and wrote:
“…I was surprised at how cheerful Nehru appeared that evening and
how like adolescent lovers he [Nehru] and Edwina behaved,
touching, whispering into each others ears, laughing, holding
hands. …Lord Mountbatten himself often referred to Nehru’s
correspondence with his wife as love letters, knowing better than
anyone but Nehru how much Edwina adored her handsome
‘Jawaha’, as she lovingly called him. This was why Nehru’s
daughter Indira hated her…”{Wolp2/viii}
Reportedly, Nehru used to go to London to be with Edwina almost every
year, or she used to come to India, and stay with him—after independence.
Also, reportedly, one of the jobs of Krishna Menon as High Commissioner
in London, for which he used to gladly volunteer, was to receive Nehru at
the airport at any hour and drive him down to Edwina’s secluded country
house—Broadlands—where Nehru and Edwina could enjoy complete
privacy.{Wolp2/10}
Wrote Stanley Wolpert:
“Nehru flew off again to London... Krishna Menon was waiting
with the Rolls, as usual, at London’s airport and drove him back to
Edwina shortly before midnight... Indira was upset by her fathers
unrelenting obsession with 'that Mountbatten lady'!”{Wolp2/443}
“Jawahar tried to talk Edwina into staying on with him after Dickie
[Mountbatten] flew home [in June 1948], for he knew by now that
her heart belonged to him alone. Mountbatten, of course, also ‘knew
that they were lovers', as did all of their close friends. Edwina’s
sister Mary hated Nehru for it... Still he wanted her, needed her,
pleaded with her...”{Wolp2/435}
MJ Akbar writes about the encounter of Russi Mody, once the Chief
Executive of Tata Steel, with Nehru at Nainital where Nehru was staying
with his father and UP Governor, Sir Homi Mody. “Sir Homi was very
pukka, and when the gong sounded at eight he instructed his son to go to
the Prime Ministers bedroom and tell him dinner was ready. Russi Mody
marched up, opened the door and saw Jawaharlal and Edwina in a clinch.
Jawaharlal looked at Russi Mody and grimaced. Russi quickly shut the door
and walked out.”{Akb/391}
Wrote K Natwar Singh: “I once asked Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit, Nehru’s
sister, if the rumours about her brother having an affair with Edwina
Mountbatten were true. She was herself a diva and uninhibited in her
conversation. She said to me: ‘Of course he did. And good for him.’”{Nat1}
Nehru’s correspondence with Edwina contained matters of national
importance, for he used to share his thinking with her. Hence, they are of
vital historical importance, and not just something that are merely personal
—of no consequence. Yet they are being treated as if they are the personal
property of the Dynasty, and are being kept a closely guarded secret.
Wolpert mentions in the preface to his book ‘Nehru: A Tryst with Destiny’
he tried to access the letters, but failed.{Wolp2/viii}
While one doesn't really care for the personal side of it—considering
they were two consenting adults—could such relationship have
compromised Nehru or India's political cause in any way? Edwina
Mountbatten, about whose relationship with Nehru a lot has been written,
would have most likely persuaded Nehru to go by the counsel of
Mountbatten and take the Kashmir matter to the UN, but one can't be sure.
Maulana Azad, a pro-Nehru person, expressed bewilderment in his
autobiography as to how a person like Jawaharlal was won over by Lord
Mountbatten; mentions Nehru’s weakness of being impulsive and amenable
to personal influences, and wonders if the Lady Mountbatten factor was
responsible.{Azad/198}
Reportedly, Mountbatten himself admitted that he used his wife to get
an insight into Nehru’s mind and, where needed, influence Nehru when he
failed to bring him round to his view. Philip Zeigler, Mountbatten's
biographer, stated that Mountbatten encouraged loving relationship between
his wife and Nehru—to this end.
About Nehru’s visit to the US, writes Stanley Wolpert:
“The long flight had wearied Nehru, but he perked up as soon as he
saw Jackie [Jacqueline Kennedy] and was most excited by the
prospect of her imminent visit to India with her lovely sister, both of
whom he invited to stay in his house, in the suite that Edwina had
always occupied. But Kennedy found Nehru so unresponsive in
their talks—which for the most part turned out to be Kennedy
monologues—that he later rated his summit with Nehru as ‘the
worst State visit’ he had ever experienced. Nehru’s age and
reluctance to ‘open up’ in Washington proved most frustrating to his
young host, who also found infuriating Nehru’s focus on his wife
and his inability to keep his hands from touching her.”{Wolp2/480}
There have been stories pertaining to Shraddha Mata, Padmaja Naidu,
Mridula Sarabhai and others. But, they are personal in nature and irrelevant
to evaluation of Nehru as a national leader. Besides, one does not know how
true they are.
SARDARS DAUGHTER
‘I too had a dream’{VK1}—an autobiography of Dr Verghese Kurien of
Anand Dairy fame, as told to Gouri Salvi, the author—is a great story full
of interesting anecdotes. It is worth reading such real life stories. Among
the many interesting episodes in the book, one, rather shocking anecdote
relates to Maniben Patel, daughter of Sardar Patel. The anecdote below is
based on book of Kurien and other sources.
Sardar Patel's wife, Jhaverba, had expired back in 1909, and he was
being looked after by his daughter, Maniben, who chose not to get married.
Maniben was a devoted patriot, and a dedicated Congress worker, who gave
her all to the nation, and to the Freedom Struggle. Sardar Patel did not have
any bank balances or property. Even though he was earning substantially as
a very successful lawyer, once he got into the Freedom Movement, he gave
up everything. Sardar was the very example of Gandhian simplicity. He
used to say that, “Bapu has told that those in politics should not hold
property, and I hold none.” Such were the ideals then. Contrast this with the
multi-crorepati leaders of today.
When Sardar Patel expired, he had left nothing for his daughter. With
Sardar no more, she had to vacate the house. She was left all alone to fend
for herself, with no money and no house. Sardar had instructed her to give a
bag and a book to Nehru upon his death.
After Sardars death—which happened in Mumbai—Maniben dutifully
went to Delhi, took an appointment with Nehru and met him. She handed
over to him the bag and the book. It seems the book was an account book,
and the bag contained rupees 35 lacs. After having done so, she waited for
Nehru to express sympathy, enquire as to what she intended doing, where
would she stay, her monetary position, whether she wanted anything, and
what he could do for her. But, Nehru showed no interest and said nothing.
After some time, she left disappointed.
She returned to Ahmedabad to stay with a cousin. Neither Nehru, nor
the Congress Party bothered about her well-being. Such was the fate of the
lady who gave her all to the nation and of the daughter of a person who
made India what it is today! Contrast this with the Nehru Dynasty.
{ 8 }
Nehru’s Unjust Anointment as PM
Hijacking of Elections
Race for India’s First PM: Iron Man vs. Nehru
Post 1945, with the increasing hopes of the imminence of India’s
independence, all patriots looked forward to having a strong, assertive,
competent, decisive, no-nonsense person as India’s first prime minister,
who would bring back the lost glory of India, and turn it into a modern,
prosperous nation. Iron Man Sardar Patel was the clear choice, being a cut
much above the rest. And, nobody looked forward to having some
undemocratic, indecisive, clueless leader to mess up a hard-won freedom
after centuries.
The Congress Party had practically witnessed Patel as a great executor,
organizer and leader, with his feet on the ground. Sardar had demonstrated
his prowess in the various movements and assignments, including that in
the Nagpur Agitation of 1923; the Borsad Satyagraha of 1923; excellent
management of the Ahmedabad Municipality during 1924-27; tackling of
the Ahmedabad Floods of 1927; the Bardoli Satyagraha of 1928 that earned
him the title of "Sardar"; the Dandi March and the Salt Satyagraha of 1930;
successful management of elections for the Congress during 1934-37;
preparation, conduct and management of Haripura session of the Congress
in 1938 on a massive scale; building up of the party machine; role in
preparation for the Quit India Movement; and premier leadership role 1945
onwards. Patel’s achievements were far in excess of Nehru’s, and all
Congress persons and the country knew it.
Sardar was far better academically, and much more intelligent than
Nehru. Like Nehru, Sardar Patel too had studied in England. But, while
Nehru’s father financed all his education, Sardar financed his own
education in England, through his own earnings! While Nehru could
manage to scrape through in only a poor lower second-division in England,
Sardar Patel topped in the first division!
Professionally too, Sardar was a successful lawyer, while Nehru was a
failure. Sardar had a roaring practice, and was the highest paid lawyer in
Ahmedabad, before he left it all on a call by Gandhi; while Nehru was
dependent upon his father for his own upkeep, and that of his family.
Wrote Balraj Krishna:
“Common talk among the members of the Indian Civil Service post-
Independence used to be: If the dead body of the Sardar were
stuffed and placed on a chair, he could still rule.’”{BK/xi}
Based on the ground-level practical experience since 1917, it could be
said with certainty in 1946 that Nehru was no match for Sardar for the
critical post of the prime minister. Of course, Nehru as PM in practice
confirmed beyond a shred of doubt that it should have been Sardar, and not
him, who should have been the first PM of India. For details, please read
the authors other books ‘Nehru’s 97 Major Blunders’ and ‘Foundations of
Misery: The Nehruvian Era 1947-64’, available on Amazon.
Critical Importance of Congress Presidential Election in 1946
Traditionally, elections for the president of the Indian National Congress
(INC) used to be held yearly. The post used to get rotated among the senior
members of the Congress. Successive terms for the same person were rare.
However, on account of the unusual circumstances of WW-II and ‘Quit
India’ when almost all top Congress leaders were in jail, including Maulana
Abul Kalam Azad (1888-1958), Azad remained president of the Congress
during 1940-46.
With the end of the World War II, release of all leaders from jail, and
hope of imminent freedom, it appeared likely that the Congress would soon
be called upon to form the government. Hence, election of a Congress
President, who would head the government as Prime Minister, became
incumbent. Unlike all the previous occasions since the formation of the
Congress in 1885, the election of the Congress President in 1946 became
special and critical—because whoever became the President would also
have become the first Prime Minister of India.
Legal Procedure for the Election
As per the laid down procedure in practice for many decades, only the
Pradesh Congress Committees (PCCs) were the authorised bodies to elect a
president. There were 15 such PCCs They were supposed to send their
nomination to the Congress Working Committee (CWC). The person who
received maximum nominations was elected as President. There being 15
PCCs, at least 8 PCCs had to nominate a specific individual for him or her
to gain the majority to become president.
In 1946, the last date of nominations for the post of the president was 29
April 1946.
Result of the Election : Sardar Won Unopposed
The Congress Working Committee (CWC) met on 29 April 1946 to
consider the nominations sent by the PCCs. 12 of the 15 (80%) PCCs
nominated Sardar Patel{RG/370}; and 3 PCCs out of the 15 (20%) did not
nominate anyone. It therefore turned out to be a non-contest. Sardar Patel
was the only choice, and an undisputed choice, with not a single opposition.
What was noteworthy was that on 20 April 1946, that is, nine days
before the last date of nominations of 29 April 1946, Gandhi had indicated
his preference for Nehru. Yet, not a single PCC nominated Nehru!
Hijacking of the Election by Gandhi–Nehru
Looking to the unexpected (unexpected by Gandhi) development,
Gandhi prodded Kriplani to convince a few CWC members to propose
Nehru’s name for the party president. Gandhians like Kriplani and several
others apparently did not have a mind of their own—they slavishly went by
what their guru, the Mahatma, directed. Kriplani promptly and
unquestioningly complied: He got a few to propose Nehru’s name. Finding
this queer development, Sardar Patel enquired with Gandhi, and sought his
advice. Gandhi counselled him to withdraw his name. Patel complied
promptly, and didn’t raise any question. That cleared the way for Nehru.
The “democratic” Nehru didn’t feel embarrassed at his and Gandhi’s
blatant hijacking of the election, and shamelessly accepted his own
nomination.
Said Kripalani later: “Sardar did not like my intervention.”{RG/371}
Years later Acharya Kripalani had told Durga Das:
“All the P.C.C.s sent in the name of Patel by a majority and one or
two proposed the names of Rajen Babu in addition, but none that of
Jawaharlal. I knew Gandhi wanted Jawaharlal to be President for a
year, and I made a proposal myself [at Gandhi’s prodding] saying
‘some Delhi fellows want Jawaharlal’s name’. I circulated it to the
members of the Working Committee to get their endorsement. I
played this mischief. I am to blame. Patel never forgave me for that.
He was a man of will and decision. You saw his face. It grew year
by year in power and determination…”{DD/229}
Gandhi-Nehru Act : Why Improper?
Gandhi’s actions must be judged in the background of his being a
“Mahatma”, and an “Apostle of Truth and Non-Violence”. As Gandhi had
himself stressed, “non-violence” didn’t have a narrow interpretation as just
lack of violence, but a broad interpretation where things like anger, illegal
and unjust acts also came within the broad definition of violence. What
Gandhi and Nehru manoeuvred was not only illegal, immoral and
unethical, but also against the interest of the nation. Here are the reasons for
the same:
(1) Illegality-1: PCCs alone were authorised to elect the president. There
was nothing in the Congress constitution to permit that rule to be
overturned. How could Gandhi overrule what 15 PCCs had recommended?
On what legal basis? Gandhi’s action was totally illegal.
(2) Illegality-2: Gandhi had resigned from the primary membership of
the Congress back in 1934 to devote himself to “constructive work” (Were
political work and fighting for freedom “destructive”?). Thereafter, he had
never rejoined the Congress. How could a non-member of the Congress like
Gandhi dictate who should be the president of the Congress, or even
participate in CWC meetings?
(3) Unreasonable-1: Did Gandhi put on record his reasons for
overruling the recommendations of the PCCs? No.
(4) Unreasonable-2: Did Gandhi put on record why Patel was not
suitable as the president, and hence the first PM, and why Nehru was a
better choice? No.
(5) Unreasonable-3: Was there a proper, detailed, and threadbare
discussion in the CWC on why Patel was not suited for the post, and
therefore why the recommendations of the PCCs should be ignored? No.
(6) Unreasonable-4: If CWC was not convinced of the
recommendations of the PCCs, why didn’t it refer back the matter to the
PCCs, and ask them to re-submit their recommendations, with detailed
reasoning? The decision could have been postponed.
(7) Against National Interest-1: How could responsibility of such
critical nature be assigned to a person without doubly ensuring that person’s
relative suitability through fair and democratic discussions among all CWC
members, and, of course, finally through voting.
(8) Against National Interest-2: National interests demanded that the
choice of person was dictated not by personal biases, and diktats, but by
suitability, and mutual consensus, and the reasons should have been put on
record.
(9) Dictatorial & Undemocratic-1: How could an individual like Gandhi
dictate who should or should not be the president, and hence the first PM?
And, if that was fine for the Congress, then why the sham of elections, and
votes of the PCCs?
(10) Dictatorial & Undemocratic-2: What kind of freedom “fighters”
we had in the Gandhian Congress that they didn’t even assert their freedom
within the CWC, or show their guts against the slavery of Gandhi, and
voice their opinions? Was an individual Gandhi correct, and were the 15
PCCs wrong?
(11) Unethical-1: Leave apart the legal and other aspects, was it ethical
and moral and truthful for Gandhi to do what he did? If indeed he thought
he was correct, and all others were wrong, the least that was expected from
him was to explain his logic and reasoning. Or, was he above all that? Do
what you want—no questions asked!
(12) Unethical-2: How could a person being nominated for president,
and therefore as the first Indian PM, be so devoid of integrity, fair-play and
ethics as to blatantly be a party to the illegality of throwing the
recommendations of the PCCs into a dustbin, and allowing oneself to be
nominated?
(13) Unembarrassed: Did it not embarrass Nehru that he was usurping a
position undemocratically through blatantly unfair means? Did it behove a
future PM?
(14) Blunder: Overall, it was a blot on the working of the CWC, and on
the CWC members, and particularly Gandhi and Nehru, that they could so
brazenly and irresponsibly commit such a blunder, which ultimately cost the
nation heavy.
Reaction of Stalwarts on the Improper Act
Wrote Rajmohan Gandhi:
“If Gandhi had his reasons for wanting Jawaharlal, the party had its
for wanting Patel, whom it saw, as Kripalani would afterwards say,
as ‘a great executive, organizer and leader’, with his feet on the
ground. The party was conscious too of Sardars successful Quit
India exertions, not matched by Jawaharlal.”{RG/370}
Acharya Kriplani was the General Secretary of the Congress then. It was
he who had proposed the name of Jawaharlal Nehru, at the instance of
Gandhi. He admitted later:
“I sent a paper round proposing the name of Jawaharlal… It was
certain that if Jawaharlal’s name had not been proposed, the Sardar
would have been elected as the President… The Sardar did not like
my intervention. I have since wondered if, as the General Secretary,
I should have been instrumental in proposing Jawaharlal’s name in
deference to Gandhi’s wishes in the matter… But who can forecast
the future? On such seemingly trivial accidents depends the fate of
men and even of nations.”{Krip/248-9}
DP Mishra had commented: “When we members of the Mahakoshal
PCC preferred him [Patel] to Nehru as Congress President, we had no
intention of depriving Nehru of future Premiership. The younger man had
already been raised to the office of Congress President thrice, and we
therefore thought it just and proper that Patel, the older man, should have at
least a second chance [at Presidency, and thus be the first PM].”{RG/372}
{DPM/185-6}
Dr Rajendra Prasad had stated: “Gandhi has once again sacrificed his
trusted lieutenant for the sake of the glamorous Nehru.”{RG/371}
Subhas Bose had said much earlier: I do not like Gandhiji’s
appeasement of the Nehrus. We in Bengal represent the real revolutionary
force. Jawahar only talks. We act.”{DD/129}
In fact, without Gandhi, Nehru would have been nowhere near the top. It
was Gandhi who sold him and promoted him.
Wrote Maulana Azad, who had always favoured Nehru over Patel, in his
autobiography: “...Taking all facts into consideration, it seemed to me that
Jawaharlal should be the new President [of Congress in 1946—and hence
PM]. Accordingly, on 26 April 1946, I issues a statement proposing his
name for Presidentship... [Then] I acted according to my best judgement but
the way things have shaped since then has made me to realise that this was
perhaps the greatest blunder of my political life...”{Azad/162}
Maulana Azad also confessed in his above autobiography:
“My second mistake was that when I decided not to stand myself I
did not support Sardar Patel. We differed on many issues but I am
convinced that if he had succeeded me as Congress President he
would have seen that the Cabinet Mission Plan was successfully
implemented. He would have never committed the mistake of
Jawaharlal which gave Mr. Jinnah an opportunity of sabotaging the
Plan. I can never forgive myself when I think that if I had not
committed these mistakes, perhaps the history of the last ten years
would have been different.”{Azad/162}
Wrote Kuldip Nayar: “[Humayun] Kabir [translator and editor of
Maulana Azad's autobiography] believed that Azad had come to realize
after seeing Nehru’s functioning that Patel should have been India’s prime
minister and Nehru the president of India. Coming as it did from an
inveterate opponent of Patel, it was a revelation...A year earlier,
Rajagopalachari had said the same thing...”{KN}
This is what Rajaji, who had then been pro-Nehru, had to say two
decades after the death of Patel in Swarajya of 27.11.1971:
“When the independence of India was coming close upon us and
Gandhiji was the silent master of our affairs, he had come to the
decision that Jawaharlal, who among all the Congress leaders was
the most familiar with foreign affairs [although the Nehruvian years
proved Nehru had made a mess of the foreign policy and external
security], should be the Prime Minister of India, although he knew
Vallabhbhai would be the best administrator among them all…
Undoubtedly it would have been better… if Nehru had been asked to
be the Foreign Minister and Patel made the Prime Minister. I too
fell into the error of believing that Jawaharlal was the more
enlightened person of the two... A myth had grown about Patel that
he would be harsh towards Muslims. That was a wrong notion but it
was the prevailing prejudice.”{RG3/443}
Rajaji took over from Mountbatten as the Governor-General (GG) of
India on 21 June 1948. When Nehru had suggested Rajaji’s name as the
GG, Rajaji had, in fact, written to Nehru that he (Nehru) should himself
take over as the Governor-General (GG), and make Sardar Patel the Prime
Minister. However, Nehru, vide his letter of 21 May 1948 to Rajaji, had
politely turned down the suggestion: “Please forgive me for the delay in
answering your telegram No.26-S dated 12th May 1948 in which you
suggested that I [Nehru] might be GG [Governor General]. Any suggestion
from you is worthy of thought, but I am afraid the present one is completely
impracticable from various points of view…”{JNSW/Vol-6/356}
Jayaprakash Narayan(JP) stated in 1972:
“Rajaji once unburdened his heart by publicly confessing to a wrong
he had done to Sardar Patel. I find myself in a similar situation: the
dominant feeling within me today is one of self-reproach, because
during his lifetime, I was not merely a critic, but an opponent of the
Great Sardar.”{BK/243}
The same JP, a socialist, used to be in Nehru’s camp. After
independence the socialists had been plotting to unseat Patel from his post
as Home Minister. JP had commented : “A man of 74 [Sardar Patel] has the
department of which even a man of 30 would find it difficult to bear the
burden.” Mridula Sarabhai, who was close to Nehru, had launched a
whisper campaign for Sardars resignation. It is difficult to believe that the
campaigns of both JP and Mridula did not have the blessings of Nehru, both
being close to him.{Mak/129}
Writes Stanley Wolpert:
“The Sardar, as Congress’s strongman was called, was determined
to stay and solve whatever problems remained, rather than running
away from them. He had long viewed Nehru as a weak sister and
often wondered why Gandhi thought so highly of him.”{Wolp2/377-8}
Wrote Minoo Masani in his book ‘Against the Tide’: “My own
understanding is that if Sardar Patel had been Prime Minister during that
time and not Nehru, India would have gone further and faster.”{MiM/195}
Gandhi’s Personal Bias & Illogical Logic
If one studies Gandhi’s prescriptions, advice and decisions, whether
political or non-political or personal, all through his life, one finds that most
of them were based not on strong and convincing logic, but on the
inexplicable Gandhian brand of understanding (or misunderstanding) and
interpreting (or misinterpreting) reality, and the typical Gandhian brand of
Mahatman analysis, reasoning and logic—not seldom self-serving, but
well-camouflaged. In the specific case, let’s see what was Gandhi’s own
reasoning.
Gandhi had remarked:
"Jawaharlal cannot be replaced today whilst the charge is being
taken from the British. He, a Harrow boy, a Cambridge graduate,
and a barrister, is wanted to carry on the negotiations with the
Englishmen."{RG/370} {RG5/545}
But, what were the facts? Who was more competent to negotiate with
the British? Nehru or Patel? Subsequent history showed that the critical
negotiations and discussions with the British, and the decisions that affected
the nation, were principally taken by Patel, and not Nehru—Nehru being
too timid, confused, and indecisive.
Gandhi had once written of Nehru: “He [Nehru] is a friend of the
English people. Indeed, he is more English than Indian in his thought and
make-up. He is often more at home with Englishmen than with his own
countrymen.” Gandhi had also commented about Nehru: He is the only
Englishman we have!” Less said about this remark the better—Did Gandhi
think Englishmen were the only competent people?
Another reasoning attributed to Gandhi’s preference was that he felt
Nehru was better known abroad and could help India play a role in the
international affairs.{RG/370} But, if that were the reason, he could have been
made foreign minister under Sardar. It is another matter that Nehru made a
mess of the foreign policy, as obvious from the adverse results of his
policies post-independence. In fact, Sardar's views were far more realistic
on foreign policy matters, and he would have done a much better job of it.
(Please see details on the chapter on foreign policy.)
Somebody asked Gandhi why he did so. Reportedly, Gandhi’s reason
was he wanted both Nehru and Patel together to lead the nation, but while
Nehru would not work under Sardar Patel, he knew that in the national
interest he could persuade Sardar Patel to work under Nehru, as Sardar
would not defy him.{ITV} What Gandhi said amounts to this: that Sardar
Patel, even though senior and more experienced, and backed by majority,
was patriotic enough to work under Nehru in the national interest, if so
prodded by Gandhi; Nehru, junior, less experienced, and not backed by a
single PCC, wanted only to become PM, and was not patriotic enough to
work under Patel, in the national interest, even if persuaded by Gandhi!
Durga Das recounted the following:
“I asked Gandhi… He [Gandhi] readily agreed that Patel would
have proved a better negotiator and organiser as Congress President,
but he felt Nehru should head the Government. When I asked him
how he reconciled this with his assessment of Patel’s qualities as a
leader, he laughed and said: ‘Jawaharlal is the only Englishman in
my camp… Jawaharlal will not take second place. He is better
known abroad than Sardar and will make India play a role in
international affairs. [Why not make him Foreign Minister then?]
Sardar will look after the country’s affairs. They will be like two
oxen yoked to the government cart. One will need the other and
both will pull together.’”{DD/230}
Other Aspects of Nehru’s Unjust Anointment
How Nehru became Gandhi’s favourite
It is worth noting that as long as Gandhi was alive Nehru pretended to
be his faithful follower (and Gandhi reciprocated by calling him his son) for
he was ambitious, wise, cunning and selfish enough to realise that the route
to power lay through Gandhi’s blessings. Gandhi used to say that even
though Nehru used to fight with him on many issues, ultimately he used to
agree with him [Gandhi]. Little did Gandhi know that it was not because
Nehru agreed with him, but because Nehru knew that to continue to differ
from Gandhi might cost him his position—like it had happened with Netaji
Subhas Bose—and his goal of becoming the prime minister.
Nehru’s socialism was rather superficial—his posturing as a radical was
a convenient ploy to win the hearts of the true radicals and the youth, even
as he stuck to conservative Gandhi and Gandhism to advance his career.
Gandhi had also said that after he would be no more, Nehru would speak
his language. If Gandhi had watched from heaven, he would have known
that Nehru had buried Gandhism along with his [Gandhi’s] death.
Incidentally, this last thing was told by a Nehru loyalist, Rafi Ahmed
Kidwai, himself, as quoted by Durga Das in his book: Jawaharlal has
performed the last rites not only of Gandhi but of Gandhism as well.”{DD/279}
After Gandhi was no more, Nehru practically put into practice all such
policies, norms and governance culture that flew in the face of Gandhism.
Of course, the trend started after he became the PM. Against Gandhi’s
advice, Nehru&Co shifted to colonial mansions (please see details
elsewhere in this book). He insulted, ignored or side-lined most of his
Gandhian colleagues of the freedom struggle to ensure a dictatorial hold on
the party and the government of himself and his dynasty. Many like
Acharya Kripalani, Rajaji left or separated during his time, and the rest
during his daughter Indira’s time. Both he and his daughter railed against
the princely order for political publicity and votes, but themselves lived and
behaved like Maharaja and Maharani. The main trait of the Nehru dynasty
has been intensive self-projection and publicity for themselves through all
means possible, side-lining of talented rivals, and ensuring their own
survival and continuance in power.
Nehru’s Obduracy
Finding none had recommended Nehru, Gandhi, reportedly, did tell
Nehru: “No PCC has put forward your name…only [a few members of] the
Working Committee has.{RG/371} Nehru, however, responded with complete
silence to this pregnant remark.{RG/371} Despite his grand pretentions of
Gandhi as his father figure, and he being his son, chela and follower, Nehru
remained silently defiant and let it be known to Gandhi he would not play
second fiddle to anyone. It appears that all the “sacrifice” for the nation by
Motilal and his son was geared to ultimately grab power for the Nehru
dynasty!
It has even been claimed that Nehru tried blackmail: he threatened to
split the Congress on the issue. Gandhi was in a quandary: the transfer of
power plan might go haywire or get delayed if the British found the
Congress itself split, and wondered whom to hand over the power.
Gandhi weighed in the possible scenario.
Would Nehru come around and let the legal process go through in a fair
manner, and let Sardar Patel become the prime minister? Would Nehru, who
claimed himself to be his (Gandhi’s) most faithful follower, agree to his
decision if he allowed the post to Sardar? Would Nehru submit to his
decision? The answers to all these questions were a big NO.
Could Nehru create difficulties in the smooth transfer of power to the
Congress? Could the situation lead to unforeseen complications? Had
Nehru become so power hungry? Could Nehru do so even if it created huge
difficulties for the Congress and the national independence? Could Nehru
defy him? The answers appeared to be in the realm of YES!
Sardars “Nation First”
Gandhi weighed in the alternate scenario. Would Sardar agree to step
out of the race if he asked him? Would Sardar put national interest and
imminent independence above his personal ambition? Could Sardar be
persuaded? The answers to all these questions were a big YES.
Could Sardar defy him? Could Sardar too, like Nehru, create
difficulties? Could Sardar also split Congress, considering he had such an
overwhelming support? The answers appeared to be in the realm of NO!
Gandhi must have thought that it would be safer to ask Sardar Patel to
make the sacrifice than to reason with a power-smitten Nehru. In fact, he
had commented that Nehru had gone power-mad.
Genuine competence for the job apparently was not a consideration that
exercised Gandhi.
Gandhi’s Personal Considerations
It is doubtful if Gandhi was unaware that Patel was more capable than
Nehru: his true internal opinion could not have been different from what
most in the Congress felt. Though suitable garbed, Gandhi was subject to,
in this case definitely, his own bias and selfish considerations.
After release from jail after 1942 Quit India Movement, Patel was
unhappy with several steps of Gandhi, and had realised that in the national
interest, it may be necessary to chalk out a course that may not tally with
Gandhi’s. Gandhi, in turn, had noticed that Patel was one person who would
stand up to him, and may defy him.
That was not the case with Nehru. Nehru always came around to
Gandhi’s side. Not that Nehru was naturally obedient, and didn’t disagree
with Gandhi. There were two aspects to it. One, Nehru was himself too
indecisive and uncertain and timid to stand up for what he thought was
right. Two, Nehru knew it would pay to be always on the right side of
Gandhi—he knew how Gandhi had sidelined Netaji Subhas, and many
others who differed from him. Nehru, focussed on what he wanted for
himself and for his dynasty, was clever enough to recognize which side the
bread was buttered, and played his pro-Gandhi game deftly.
Gandhi was careful not to hold an official post. That way he remained
responsible and accountable for nothing. If something went wrong, the
Congress President, or those holding charge, became accountable.
However, he used to make sure that those holding official posts in the
Congress did his bidding. If they acted otherwise, he generally manoeuvred
to ensure they were shown the door. Like he did with Netaji Subhas.
Gandhi had sensed post 1945 that Sardar Patel may not play to his tune,
and may chart his own course, which he did. Hence, he was not a safe bet.
Nehru, on the other hand, was pliable, as Nehru himself was ever confused,
and never sure of anything. For Gandhi, Nehru was a safer bet. And, Nehru
proved it soon after independence. When Sardar Patel put his foot down on
not parting with rupees 55 crores to Pakistan, and got the same approved in
the cabinet headed by Nehru, and Gandhi took objection, wanting India to
immediately give that money to Pakistan, Nehru, rather than standing by the
cabinet decision, flipped and went over to Gandhi’s side!
Gandhi’s credo of Hindu-Muslim unity had degenerated into Muslim
appeasement, however unjust it may have been to Hindus—even on the
refugee issues. Nehru was on the same wavelength as Gandhi on Muslim
appeasement, even one-up—that might also have contributed to Gandhi
tilting in his favour. Patel had jocularly remarked in his typical laconic
style: “Jawahar is the only nationalist Muslim today.”{DD/240} Unlike Gandhi
and Nehru, Sardar Patel was against Muslim appeasement, but was just and
fair to all communities.
Given a milieu of self-serving ad hocism imposed on the Congress by
Gandhi, where was the scope to rationally, realistically and democratically
discuss and lay down a well thought-out criteria, and then decide who
would be the most appropriate person to be the president, and hence the
prime minister, in the given scenario. Only the sole “wise” person and
dictator (as Gandhi loved to be regarded as) unconstrained by the
democratic norms could decide it! Further, Gandhi was under no obligation
to elaborate and educate others on the reasons.
History of Gandhi’s Personal Bias
Advice to Azad
Looking to the once-in-a-life-time prospect of becoming India’s first
PM, Maulana Azad, who had been president till 1945, was more than
willing to continue as President, and threw enough hints through the media.
He has written in his autobiography: “The question naturally arose that
there should be fresh Congress elections and a new President chosen. As
soon as this was mooted in the press, a general demand arose that I should
be re-elected President for another term. The main argument in favour of
my re-election was that I had been in charge of negotiations with Cripps,
with Lord Wavell and at present with the Cabinet Mission. At the Shimla
Conference, I had for the first time succeeded in arriving at a successful
solution of the political problem even though the Conference finally broke
on the communal issue. There was a general feeling in Congress that since I
had conducted the negotiations till now, I should be charged with the task of
bringing them to a successful close and implementing them.”{Azad/161}
However, Mahatma Gandhi, who desired Nehru in that position,
remonstrated with Azad, even writing a letter to him on 20 April 1946 to
clear the air: “Please go through the enclosed [newspaper] cutting [stating
Azad’s desire for re-election]... I have not spoken to anyone of my opinion.
When one or two Working Committee members asked me, I said that it
would not be right for the same President to continue... If you are of the
same opinion, it may be proper for you to issue a statement about the
cutting and say that you have no intention to become President again... In
today’s circumstances I would if asked prefer Jawaharlal. I have many
reasons for this. Why go into them?”{RG/370}
Personal Weakness for Nehru
The Old Man’s weakness for the Westernized Nehru over the home-spun
fellow Gujarati [Patel] was yet another aspect of SwadeshiGandhi’s self-
contradictory personality.
After the Gandhi-Irwin Pact of 1931, Gandhi had mentioned that the
premiership of India would be “reserved for younger minds and stouter
hearts”, hinting at Nehru. When Gandhi and Patel were together in Yerwada
Jail in Pune in the early 1930s, Gandhi had queried Patel as to what
portfolio would he prefer in the government of independent India, thereby
throwing a clear hint that premiership to him was not on offer. Gandhi had
also commented at the end of 1934 that he missed the association and
advice of Jawaharlal [he was in jail] “who is bound to be the rightful
helmsman of the organization in the near future.”
Acharya Kriplani had remarked that Gandhi’s reasons for preferring
Jawaharlal “were personal rather than political{RG2/L-3142}.
Gandhi had called Jawaharlal his “spiritual son”. How Jawaharlal
managed to become the “spiritual son” of Gandhi is a mystery. Wrote MN
Roy in ‘The Men I Met’: “It can reasonably be doubted if Nehru could have
become the hero of Indian Nationalism except as the spiritual son of
Gandhi… To purchase popularity, Nehru had to suppress his own
personality…”{Roy/11}
Nominating Heir in a Democratic Setup
At the meeting of the AICC held in Wardha, Gandhi formally designated
Jawaharlal Nehru as his heir on 15 January 1942. Declared Gandhi:
“...Somebody suggested that Pandit Jawaharlal and I were estranged. This is
baseless. Jawaharlal has been resisting me ever since he fell into my net.
You cannot divide water by repeatedly striking it with a stick. It is just as
difficult to divide us. I have always said that not Rajaji, nor Sardar
Vallabhbhai, but Jawaharlal will be my successor. He says whatever is
uppermost in his mind, but he always does what I want. When I am gone he
will do what I am doing now. Then he will speak my language too... He
fights with me because I am there. Whom will he fight when I am gone?
And who will suffer his fighting? Ultimately, he will have to speak my
language. Even if this does not happen, I would at least die with this
faith...”{CWMG/Vol-81/432-33}
Rather odd for an organisation with supposedly democratic setup. Did
Gandhi own the Congress that he could nominate his heir?
Even though Sardar Patel was the first to back Gandhi’s idea of “Quit
India” movement, and Jawaharlal Nehru the last; at the Congress Working
Committee (CWC) meeting in Allahabad in April 1942 Gandhi again
commented in certain context: “Those like Sardar Vallabhbhai who have
followed me without question cannot be called heirs. Jawaharlal has the
drive that no one else has in the same measure.”{RG2/L-5297}
Déjà Vu
It was not the first time Gandhi had been unfair to Patel—twice before
he had unjustly promoted Nehru over Patel for the post of Congress
president, first in 1929 and then in 1937.
Jawaharlal Nehru was given a leg up on Sardar Patel in 1929, his case
being even more undeserving at the time. Sardar Patel had led the Bardoli
Satyagraha of 1928 whose resounding success had made him a national
hero, and had earned him the title Sardar. The Bardoli Satyagraha was the
first successful practical implementation of the Gandhian non-violent
technique involving the rural masses on the ground. Nehru lacked such
credentials. He didn’t have any significant practical achievements to his
credit—he was more of a talker. Besides, Sardar Patel was much senior to
Jawaharlal, and a larger number of PCCs had recommended him over
Jawaharlal. Yet, Gandhi asked Patel to withdraw! Gandhi thereby tried to
establish an unjust pecking order where Jawaharlal came before Patel.
Netaji Subhas Bose had subsequently written: “The general feeling in
Congress circles was that the honour should go to Sardar Vallabhbhai
Patel.”{RG5/322}
Jawaharlal’s father Motilal had a major role to play in Jawaharlal’s
undeserved elevation. Motilal was the Congress President in 1928. He
desired that his position should be taken up by his son. Subsequent to
Patel’s Bardoli win, Motilal wrote to Gandhi on 11 July 1928: I am quite
clear that the hero of the hour is Vallabhbhai, and the least we can do is to
offer him the crown [make him President of the Congress]. Failing him, I
think that under all the circumstances Jawahar would be the best
choice.”{DD/128}
Motilal actively canvassed for Jawaharlal with Gandhi, and Gandhi
ultimately succumbed to the pressure, saying Sardar Patel would anyway be
with him. Nepotism and “fight” for freedom went together: Nehrus from
Motilal downwards ensured their family was well taken care of; and that it
came first, ahead of the nation! In the long run, the nation paid heavily for
Motilal’s brazen nepotism, and Gandhi’s unwise step, and indefensible
indiscretion.
Wrote Durga Das:
“It was now clear that the Congress session at Lahore [in 1929]
would be crucial. The provincial [Congress] committees [PCCs: the
legal bodies to elect President] had recommended Gandhi and
Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel for the presidentship of the Congress.
Gandhi, who had resumed the party’s active leadership at the
previous session, was expected to welcome the nomination of the
hero of Bardoli [Sardar Patel], his most dependable lieutenant.
When Gandhi announced his preference for Jawaharlal, the general
body of Congressmen, especially the senior leaders who felt they
had been superseded, were astonished. For one thing, it was
considered odd that a son should succeed his father [Motilal] to the
Congress throne, and for another there was regret that Sardar Patel’s
outstanding services had been overlooked. Having learnt from
private inquiries that Gandhi had succumbed to pressure from
Motilal, I sought Gandhi’s version. The Mahatma pointed out that
Motilal had repeated with greater emphasis the argument put forth
in his letter of July 1928 that Jawaharlal represented youth and
dynamism… It is certain that Gandhi’s decision marked a turning
point in the history of modern India…”{DD/134}
The presidentship of the Congress in 1929-30 was particularly important
for several reasons. It was implied that the person who became president
was likely to be Gandhi’s successor. He was also to declare the goal of the
Congress as “purn swaraj” or “complete independence”.
S Nijalingappa writes in his autobiography:
“There is still another instance of the Nehrus blatantly supporting
members of their own family. This happened in 1929. That year
Sardar Patel’s name was in everybody’s mind for Congress
presidentship as he had succeeded most gloriously in carrying out
the No-Tax Campaign in Bardoli. He was the hero of the moment—
of course, his whole life was heroic. As a result of that Satyagraha
he became known as ‘Sardar’. But Jawaharlal Nehru’s father
Motilal Nehru went to Gandhiji and insisted that his son Jawaharlal
Nehru was young and very enthusiastic and it would be desirable
that he be made the Congress president that year. Gandhiji acceded
to Motilal’s request… I am mentioning the incident to show how the
Nehrus helped their own.”{Nij/102}
Congress presidentship used to be for one year, and rarely was anyone
given two terms. However, Jawaharlal was granted a second consecutive
term in 1930, thanks to Gandhi! And, Jawaharlal became president again in
1936 and 1937. In sharp contrast, Sardar Patel became Congress President
only once in 1931, even though his contribution to building up the Congress
organisation was the highest.
Prof. Michael Brecher of McGill University wrote in ‘Nehru: A Political
Biography’, a sympathetic, pro-Nehru book{MB/314-5}:
“…In accordance with the time-honoured practice of rotating the
Presidency, Patel was in line for the post. Fifteen years had elapsed
since he presided over the Karachi session whereas Nehru had
presided at Lucknow and Ferozpur in 1936 and 1937. Moreover,
Patel was the overwhelming choice of the Provincial Congress
Committees… Nehru’s ‘election’ was due to Gandhi’s intervention.
Patel was persuaded to step down.
“One month after the election the Viceroy invited Nehru, as
Congress President, to form an Interim Government. If Gandhi had
not intervened, Patel would have been the first de facto Premier of
India, in 1946-7. Gandhi certainly knew of the impending creation
of Interim Government. One must infer, therefore, that he preferred
Nehru as the first Prime Minister of free India. The Sardar was
‘robbed of the prize’ and it rankled deeply. He was then seventy-one
while Nehru was fifty-six; in traditionalist Indian terms the elder
statesman should have been the first primer and Patel knew that
because of his advanced age another opportunity would probably
not arise.
“There is striking parallel with Congress election of 1929; on both
occasions Gandhi threw his weight behind Nehru at the expense of
Patel.”{MB/314-5}
Even in 1936, Gandhi had again favoured Nehru over Sardar. Wrote
Durga Das: “The selection of the President [in the AICC of August 1936]
for the next annual session again assumed political significance in view of
the differences between Nehru and Patel on the issue of socialism. Patel and
Nehru had been proposed by Provincial Congress Committees; the former
[Patel] had a majority backing. Gandhi, however, decided that Nehru be
given another term and persuaded Patel to withdraw in his favour.”{DD/175}
Nehru’s Poor Academics vs. Sardar and Others
A general impression has been created that among the freedom fighters
if there was one exceptional intellectual and highly educated person it was
Nehru.; and he deserved to be the first PM. It is therefore worth contrasting
the educational achievements of self-made Sardar, as described earlier, with
that of Nehru.
Sardar Patel self-financed his law-education in London. He completed
his 36-month, 12-terms (4 per year) course earlier than stipulated—in about
two years, taking advantage of the special concession for the meritorious
students. Sardar obtained first class with honours, getting first rank, and
thus topping the class, and winning a prize of 50 pounds!
Writes MJ Akbar in ‘Nehru: The Making of India’:
“Eventually when he [Jawaharlal] passed in the second half of the
second class, Motilal was relieved enough to celebrate
lavishly...Motilal was acutely terrified that his son might fail, so
even such moderate results were cause for celebrations... Motilal
had set his heart on sending his son to the Indian Civil Service... He
called the ICS the ‘greatest of services in the world’... But the weak
Second [class of Jawaharlal Nehru] at the end of Cambridge
persuaded Motilal that his son was unlikely to get through the tough
ICS examinations...His [Jawaharlal’s] expenditure in 1911 was
£800, enough to pay for three years of an ordinary student’s
existence...”{Akb/74-77}
Compare the above also with Ambedkar who often skipped meals or ate
frugally to save money when he was studying in London. In ‘Dr.
Ambedkar: Life and Mission’, Dhananjay Keer mentions that Ambedkar
subsisted in London on mere £8 a month! That amounts to £96 a year.
Compare this with £800 a year of Nehru, which excluded expenses for
several other requirements that were separately arranged by Nehru’s father.
Writes Dhananjay Keer: “After this the second round of reading began at
his residence. About ten at night the fire in the stomach seemed to suppress
the fire in the head and made Ambedkar wriggle. He was mad with hunger.
An Indian acquaintance of his had made him a present of a bundle of thin
crisp Indian wafers called papad. He secured a thin tin plate to fry those
crisp wafers. A cup of tea and four pieces of papad would partly appease
the intensity of his hunger...”{DK/44}
With all those handicaps Ambedkar graduated in Political Science and
Economics from Bombay University in 1912. On scholarship from the
Maharaja of Baroda, he went to New York in 1913 and earned the degrees
of Master of Arts in 1915, followed by Doctorate in Philosophy in 1916
from the Columbia University. Thereafter, he went to London, where he
joined the Grays Inn for Law and the London School of Economics (LSE)
for Economics. He earned his second doctorate—Doctor of Science—from
LSE. He also became a barrister.
While Nehru scraped through graduation, Sardar Patel had topped in his
exams in London. Subhas Bose was a brilliant student at Cambridge who
had also cleared ICS, getting fourth rank. Dr Rajendra Prasad was a great
scholar who always topped in his class—his examiner had once written a
comment on his answer sheet: “examinee is better than examiner!”{Aru/159}
Writes Perry Anderson, a British historian and political essayist, and
Professor of History and Sociology at UCLA:
He [Nehru] seems to have learned very little at Cambridge,
scraping a mediocre degree in natural sciences that left no trace
thereafter, did poorly in his bar exams, and was not much of a
success when he returned to practise law in his fathers footsteps
His most ambitious work, The Discovery of India’, which appeared
in 1946, is a steam bath of Schwärmerei [sentimental enthusiasm]. It
would be unfair to compare Nehru to Ambedkar, the leader of the
Untouchables, intellectually head and shoulders above most of the
Congress leaders, owing in part to far more serious training at the
LSE and Columbia. To read Ambedkar is to enter a different
world. ‘The Discovery of India’—not to speak of its
predecessor, ‘The Unity of India’—illustrates not just Nehru’s lack
of formal scholarship and addiction to romantic myth, but
something deeper, not so much an intellectual as a psychological
limitation: a capacity for self-deception with far-reaching political
consequences.”{URL7}
Should Patel have surrendered to Gandhi’s whims?
What Gandhi did in 1946 should not have come as a surprise to Patel.
The bias of Gandhi was clear since 1929.
Sardar Patel should have factored in Gandhi’s unjust bias and
favouritism, and devised his own strategy. Patel should not have given-in to
Gandhi’s undemocratic whims. Not because of personal ambition, but for
the sake of the nation. Sardar knew well the weaknesses of Nehru, and his
unsuitability as the PM. He knew Nehru was capable of huge blunders, as
he had amply demonstrated in practice. He knew that giving power and PM
post to Nehru was putting the nation to grave risk. Yet, he meekly caved-in.
That was not Sardar-like. He should have shown his iron then.
Was pleasing a senile, old, undemocratic Gandhi more important, or
saving the nation, and taking it forward, more important? Sardar should
have been ambitious and nationalistic enough to carry out his historic duty
to the nation; rather than being an obedient chela of an individual like
Gandhi. That certainly was Sardars mistake that proved very costly to the
nation. He should have taken the risk and fought it out in the interest of the
nation. Sardar should have been more loyal to the nation than to Gandhi.
Wrote Rajmohan Gandhi in ‘Patel: A Life’:
“C.R. [Rajaji] commented on his [Sardar Patel’s] attitude: ‘Gandhiji
has many blind followers who will not see anything with their own
eyes but only with his. But Sardar is in a class by himself as a blind
follower. His eyes are clear and bright. He can see everything but he
deliberately allows his eyes to be blinkered and attempts to see only
with Gandhiji’s eyes?’”{RG2/L-4222}
That Nehru was younger was certainly no reason. You can’t have young
and blundering people rule the nation. Sardar should have taken the
responsibility as the PM; and later, when unwell, should have passed it on
to competent people like Rajaji or Dr Ambedkar.
{ 9 }
Dictatorial, Feudal & ‘Dynacratic’
[‘Dynacratic’ derived from ‘Dynacracy’(=Dynastic Democracy)]
Not seldom are those who tend to be critical of Nehru reminded it is
thanks to him India is a democracy, whose fruits all Indians are enjoying—
including criticising him. Does the contention hold?
Elections were conducted in India during the British times too. Congress
had not only won the 1937-elections and formed ministries in many states;
post elections, with power in their hands, they had already become so
corrupt that Gandhi had desired disbanding of Congress after independence.
The last pre-independence elections were held in 1946. Independent India
inherited many democratic institutions, including election machinery—only
it needed a boost to handle universal suffrage.
It was, in fact, the Constitution of India framed under Dr Ambedkar, and
passed by the Constituent Assembly comprising scores of worthies and
headed by Dr Rajendra Prasad, which had provided for universal adult
franchise and democratic setup. So, how can the credit be given to Nehru?
True, elections were held in 1952 and it was a massive affair, with universal
adult franchise, the main credit for which goes to Sukumar Sen, India's first
Chief Election Commissioner.
UNDEMOCRATIC, DICTATORIAL & FEUDAL TENDENCIES
Wrote historian Makkhan Lal: Deep inside his heart, Nehru always
was a dictator and first rate politician and manipulator. He feared only
Gandhi and Patel—Gandhi because of his moral authority and complete
grip on the masses and Patel because of his firmness, unwillingness to be
emotionally blackmailed and the writ in the party.”{Mak/251}
Proof of pudding is in the eating. Similarly, the proof of Nehru’s
dictatorial and undemocratic tendencies and his arrogant attitude of ‘my
way or the highway’, even though ‘his way’ proved to be wrong most of the
time, was in his actions. Once Gandhi and Patel were out of the way, Nehru
began to blatantly have only his way. All the other stalwarts of the freedom
movement, who were or could have been a challenge to him, were
gradually eased out, or chose to dissociate themselves, given his
unacceptable ways: C Rajagopalachari, JB Kripalani, DP Mishra, Dr BR
Ambedkar, Dr SP Mukherjee, and so on. Sycophants and camp-followers
took their place, and made way for the dynastic domination. Patel’s death
had removed the only brake on Nehru. Nehru then packed his cabinet not
with the best talent available, but with non-entities, ensuring they would not
stand up to him, or would rather suck-up to him.
John Mathai (1886–1959) was an economist who served as India's first
Railway Minister and subsequently as India's Finance Minister between
1949 and 1951. Being pro-Nehru, he was initially prejudiced against Sardar
Patel; but, he soon discovered Nehru’sfeet of clay”, and remarked:
“…Under Nehru the Cabinet had never functioned, and all decisions
were taken privately by the Prime Minister and the individual
Minister concerned. Even when a decision was endorsed in the
Cabinet, the Prime Minister went back on it and reversed the
decision… The only time when the Indian Cabinet really functioned
was when Nehru was away in Washington for a few weeks towards
the end of October 1948 and when Sardar Patel was acting as Prime
Minister. For the first time the cabinet functioned with joint
responsibility; and the acting Prime Minister conducted meetings as
the British Prime Minister would have.”{BK/505}
For his honest and forthright views, especially on the Planning
Commission, rather than allowing diversity of opinion and resolving issues
democratically through discussions in the cabinet and other forums, John
Mathai (then Finance Minister) was eased out by Nehru from the cabinet.
{URL34}
Post-independence, we are actually living in an excruciatingly overlong
era, or rather curse, of democratic feudalism, ironically founded by the one
who had raved most against feudalism, rajas and maharajas during the
freedom struggle—Nehru!
Nehru's conduct in the various affairs of the State was totally contrary to
the democratic spirit—he was unnecessarily domineering, dismissive and
offendingly arrogant, as if all knowledge and wisdom rested with him. This
attitude discouraged others from expressing their opinion, correcting him,
or opposing him where warranted. It was like being a dictator in a
democracy. No wonder, he merrily committed blunder after blunder, with
neither the bureaucrats, nor his cabinet colleagues, nor other leaders
opposing him. It was his undemocratic conduct—legally democratic, but
undemocratic in spirit—that put India into so many difficulties. He rammed
through socialistic policies, he ignored Defence, he unilaterally took
damaging decisions on India-China border dispute,... the list is endless. The
democrat Jawaharlal did not deem it fit to consult his cabinet, or at least
Sardar Patel, before taking that major decision to go on AIR and announce
to the world that he was taking the Kashmir affair to the UN! And, we all
know the result of that indiscretion and that undemocratic action. The
democrat Nehru did not think it fit to resign following the debacle in India-
China war in 1962. He did not even offer to resign! In vital matters Nehru’s
arbitrary, autocratic and impulsive decisions began to determine India’s
(disastrous) course.
How ‘democratic’ Nehru was would be clear from this extract from
Neville Maxwell’s book “India’s China War”:
“There was a Cabinet committee for foreign affairs but that, too, he
[Nehru] ignored more often than not, and time and again crucial
foreign policy decisions were taken and announced—even acted
upon—without either the committee or the Cabinet being aware of
them. This was true of the handling of the boundary question with
China, which was kept not only from the Cabinet and its foreign
affairs and defence committees, but also from Parliament until
armed clashes made it impossible to suppress.”{Max/91}
Wrote Rajmohan Gandhi: “Calling Nehru, for the first time, ‘the
Congress dictator’, C.R.[Rajaji] also said: ‘The single-brain activity of the
people who meet in Congress is to find out what is in Jawaharlal’s mind and
to anticipate it. The slightest attempt at dissent meets with stern disapproval
and is nipped in the bud.’”{RG3/373}
The ‘democratic’ Nehru left no stone unturned to kill all opposition and
dissent. Sycophancy commenced with Nehru and reached its ugly climax
with Indira Gandhi.
If you are arrogant and entertain false notions of your own ability,
knowledge and understanding, then you either don’t listen to others, or are
dismissive of the opinions of the others; and tend to be undemocratic. You
don’t realise your own limitations; you don’t realise you need to involve
others, pool the expertise and then evolve a sensible joint solution.
Observing your behaviour, people stop telling you the truth; instead they
tell you only what you want to hear. You thus cut off honest opinions and
feedback.
Wrote Rustamji:
“…but when you talked to him [GB Pant, No. 2 in the Cabinet of
Nehru], you saw the agility and quickness of a mind that was in
strong contrast to his ponderous body. His thinking was quick,
incisive: he talked cleverly and had few equals in debate. His
English was perfect: and his manner of getting to the root of the
problem enviable… Yet when Pant was in the presence of the PM,
he was so respectful that he even lowered his standard of
intelligence in order that the other may shine…”{Rust/194-95}
Sardar Patel’s death was the beginning of the end of internal democracy
in the Congress. After his death, to gain Nehru’s favour, sycophancy began
in high gear; and then it got established as the main trait of the Nehru-
Dynasty-led Congress, becoming worse with each generation. Those who
dissented from Nehru gradually left Nehru’s cabinet, like Dr SP Mukherjee,
Dr BR Ambedkar, KC Neogi, John Mathai, and so on—all very talented
and capable.
Wrote MO Mathai:
“Barring a few exceptions, more especially after Sardar Patel's
death, Nehru’s colleagues were not men who would frankly speak
out in his presence. Many were tongue-tied before him, some were
ever anxious not to displease him, and some tried to find out in
advance what was likely to please him. Nearly all had an awe of
him. The net result, was that Nehru was not well served by his
colleagues.”{Mac2/L-5751}
RESTRICTING FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION (FOE)
Indian constitution took a regrettable turn on 10 May 1951 when Nehru
piloted the First Amendment to the Indian Constitution, that became a law
after a few weeks, which, among other provisions, restricted freedom of
expression (FoE) by amending Article 19(1)(a).
The amendment was perhaps provoked by the Supreme Court judgment
of 1950 on the ‘Romesh Thappar vs The State of Madras’ case, through
which the ban on Thappar's Marxist journal ‘Crossroads’ was lifted.
Through the case, the Supreme Court had effectively recognized unfettered
freedom of expression as compliant with our original Constitution, like in
the US.
Nehru was not really a liberal in the classical sense, nor was he familiar
with the intrinsic Hindu and Indian ethos of freedom of expression.
Hinduism allows, and even encourages, people to discover their own truth,
rather than being wedded to one unchanging and unchallengeable truth like
in the Abrahamic religions. In ancient India everyone was free to worship
their own gods or goddesses; write and narrate their own versions of holy
epics like the Ramayan and Mahabharat, interpret them the way they
wanted; be atheists if they so chose, like the Charvakas; practice abnormal
rituals, as long as they didn’t harm others, like the Aghoris, and so on.
Stopping the free flow of ideas is against India's innate culture.
In sharp contrast to Nehru, the First Amendment to the United States
Constitution did the reverse—it expanded the ‘Freedom of Expression’
(FoE): prohibited the making of any law respecting an establishment of
religion, ensuring that there is no prohibition on the free exercise of
religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the
press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble, or prohibiting the
petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. This First
Amendment, along with 9 others, was adopted on 15 December 1791, and
constituted the Bill of Rights.
Thanks to Nehru’s amendment above, poor Majrooh Sultanpuri, the
famous and brilliant lyricist and poet, was thrown into Arthur Road jail in
Mumbai in the early 1950s for a year for writing a verse critical of Nehru!
{URL36}
Again, thanks to Nehru’s amendment above, Dharampal, a highly
regarded thinker-scholar, who had addressed an open letter to Nehru after
the 1962 India-China war debacle, was jailed by Nehru.
During the Nehruvian era, a number of books, films and film songs that
appeared directly or indirectly critical of the government were censored or
banned. For example, the famous poet Pradeep’s song in the film ‘Amar
Rahi Ye Pyaar’ of 1961 was censored because of these lines: “Hai! Siyaasat
kitni gandi; Buri hai kitni firqa bandi; Aaj ye sab ke sab nar-naari; Ho gaye
raste ke ye bhikari.” Novel ‘Nine Hours to Ram’ by Stanley Wolpert and
many other books were banned. {URL44}
DYNASTY FIRST
Dynastic politics was not started by Jawaharlal, he only carried it
forward. It was actually started by his father—Motilal Nehru. When Motilal
Nehru retired as the Congress president in 1929, he made sure, with
Gandhiji’s backing, that his son, Jawaharlal, ascended the gaddi, over the
heads of people much more senior and capable than him.
Earlier, in order to neutralise Motilal Nehru’s dissent from the Gandhian
approach to freedom struggle, Gandhi shrewdly picked up Jawaharlal
Nehru in 1924 to be his principal aide as General Secretary of the Congress,
thereby unjustly ignoring many senior and more competent congressmen.
Jawaharlal Nehru’s dynastic tendencies were apparent in the 1930s.
After the 1937 elections when the ministry was being formed in UP, Rafi
Ahmed Kidwai and Govind Ballabh Pant, who became the Chief Minister,
proposed to Nehru inclusion of Mrs Vijayalakshmi Pandit [Nehru’s sister]
in the ministry, which he readily agreed. Why did they do it? Not because
they considered Vijayalakshmi competent! But, by doing so, they hoped to
receive Nehru’s favour, and hoped to save themselves from unnecessary
interference and outbursts of Nehru!{DD/184}
On Vijaylakshmi Pandit, there is an episode of the time Nehru was head
of the Interim Government in 1946, as written by Stanley Wolpert:
“Liaquat Ali Khan and Nehru almost came to blows in the interim
government’s cabinet, when Nehru named his sister Nan
[Vijaylakshmi Pandit] as India’s first ambassador to Moscow.
Liaquat was livid at such autocratic blatant nepotism, but his
protests fell on deaf ears. Nehru yelled louder and threatened to
resign immediately if Dickie [Mountbatten] supported Liaquat in
the matter.”{Wolp2/398}
Writes S. Nijalingappa in ‘My Life and Politics’{Nij/102}:
“Another such instance I remember was when Dr. S. Radhakrishnan
was president of India...I used to call on him whenever I was in
Delhi...In his talks with me, as I believe with others too, he was very
frank and open. One day, when I went to him he said, ‘Nijalingappa,
today I put my foot down. Do you know why?’ He then continued,
‘Pandit Nehru comes to me and wants me to make his sister, Vijay
Lakshmi Pandit, vice-president of India. I had to tell him, “You are
the prime minister of India, your daughter is the president of Indian
National Congress and you want your sister to be vice-president.
What would people say? I cannot have it.” I put my foot down and
sent him away.’
“I think Nehru had promised his sister the post and when she could
not get it, she was very angry with her brother. She complained to
me about it when she came to my house for breakfast, and said that
her brother did not keep his promise. I did not tell her what Dr S.
Radhakrishnan had told me.”{Nij/102}
Incidentally, this is what a piece by GS Ujjanappa states in The Time of
India of 12 June 2013 about Nijalingappa: “The grand old man of
Chitradurga [Nijalingappa] was known for his Gandhian ideology and had
an unblemished innings of more than six decades in politics. While most
ministers take months together to vacate their official residences and
continue to enjoy the benefits even after demitting office, Nijalingappa was
a class apart. The veteran Congressman politely declined the offer of free
government accommodation in Bangalore after his wife passed away in
1989, and moved to his house in Chitradurga. He had built the house in
1932 from his earnings as a practicing lawyer.”
So as to finally anoint his daughter as PM, Nehru took several steps to
heighten her profile: Soon after leaving his overlong presidentship of the
Congress in 1954, Nehru had Indira Gandhi nominated to the CWC, then as
a member of the Parliamentary Board and the Central Election Committee,
and finally as the Congress President in 1959.
Durga Das writes in his book that in 1957 in his weekly column in
Hindustan Times he wrote Nehru was building up his daughter for
succession. He says he had checked with Maulana Azad before writing the
column, and Azad had said he too had independently reached the same
conclusion. Even Govind Ballabh Pant had the same opinion. Later, when
Nehru remonstrated with Durga Das on the column, to mollify Nehru,
Durga Das assured him that what he had written would bring good publicity
to Indira and would stand her in good stead—at which Nehru felt happy and
smiled.{DD/370}
Although Indira Gandhi had done little work for the Congress, she was
made a member of the Congress Working Committee—entry directly from
the top, rather than rising from the bottom. There were many seniors in the
Congress who felt unhappy and commented, “We are not dead yet.” She
was then made President of the Congress, to the astonishment of all, after
an intense behind the scenes drama, managed through others by Nehru.
Nehru had also started developing her as a public figure, which included
giving her exposure to foreign dignitaries and guests. Kamaraj Plan was
also used to clear the way for Indira from the seniors, and possible
successors as PM—Morarji Desai, SK Patil, Jagjivan Ram, Lal Bahadur
Shastri, and so on.
Acharya Kripalani believed that the evils in the country emanated from
the top and that Nehru was the pace-setter in abusing patronage and power.
{DD/371}
S Nijalingappa thus describes in his autobiography how he was passed
over and Nehru ensured Indira became the Congress President in 1959:
“The Congress president then was UN Dhebar. His term was over
and a new Congress president had to be nominated. The night
before the last date for filing nominations, Lal Bahadur Shastri and
Jagjivan Ram came to me and told me, ‘You are not anxious for any
party post. Now we are going to propose your name for next
presidentship. Just don’t say no, and agree to be the president.’ I
agreed. At the Working Committee Meeting the next day [at
Nagpur], my name was proposed and was unanimously accepted… I
reached Madras the next morning and a couple of people were
waiting for me to take me to Kamaraj Nadar. When I went to meet
him he told me, ‘After you left Nagpur, at Pandit Nehru’s request,
YB Chavan said at an emergency meeting that while he had no
objection to Nijalingappa, he would propose that this time a woman
should be president, and that Indira Gandhi should be the next
president.’… [I was told that] Pandit Govind Ballabh Pant protested
and said, ‘Indu’s health is not good. Nijalingappa is all right. He has
been in the Congress for a long time and deserves to be the
Congress president.’ To this Pandit Nehru protested and said, ‘Indu
(Indira) is all right. There is nothing wrong with her…’ Once other
members came to know Nehru’s mind, they fell in line…”{Nij/101}
Wrote Rajmohan Gandhi: Suddenly, at this juncture, Indira Gandhi,
Jawaharlal’s daughter, was named party president. Her talents were yet a
secret, and she had no experience of party work. Several of Nehru’s
colleagues were offended by the choice but said nothing. C.R.
[Rajagopalachari] was outraged.”{RG3/373}
Wrote Kuldip Nayar:
“This was where I first heard that Congress President V.N. Dhebar
was resigning and Indira Gandhi was taking over. Pant had
supported Nehru at Vinoba’s ashram but not at the CWC when
Indira Gandhi was nominated as the party president. He was careful
not to oppose Nehru’s daughter directly but argued that her frail
health would come in the way of the extensive travels the Congress
president was required to undertake. Raising his voice, Nehru told
Pant that ‘she was healthier than both of us’ and could put in longer
hours of work. The subsequent discussions, as I noted, were to fix
the date on which she would assume charge. This was the first time
that dynastic politics came to the fore, and the Congress since then
has been following the practice of invariably having a member of
Nehru family at the helm of affairs...Left to Nehru, he would have
liked Indira to succeed him as prime minister, but too many
Congress leaders, with a long stint of sacrifice and struggle for the
country’s freedom, were still on the scene at the time.”{KN}
This is what Nehru stated upon his daughter becoming (or, rather,
anointed) the Congress President in 1959: “I am proud of Indira Gandhi as
my daughter, my comrade and now as my leader [being the Congress
President]. It is superfluous for me to say that I love her. I am proud of her
integrity and truthfulness.”{RNPS/34} Nehru nominated Indira on various
national and international assignments to project her favourably.
One may say that Nehru did not make Indira Gandhi the PM. But, he
was working towards it. However, before he could fulfil his mission he
passed away. Though he had done the ground work—given the necessary
visibility to her. Lal Bahadur Shastri had himself told that in Panditji’s
mind is his daughter”. Writes Kuldip Nayar: “I ventured to ask Shastri one
day: ‘Who do you think Nehru has in mind as his successor?’ ‘Unke dil
main to unki saputri hai [In his heart is his daughter],’ said
Shastri...Nijalingappa said he was pretty sure that Nehru had his daughter in
mind as his successor. In his diary, he wrote on 15 July 1969 that Nehru
‘was always grooming her for the prime-ministership obviously and
patently’.”{KN}
Wrote MO Mathai: “A couple of years ago Vijaya Lakshmi asked me,
‘Why did Bhai [Nehru] drop me completely during the last phase of his
life?’ I did not wish to answer that question at the time, and managed to
change the subject. I have already given in this chapter part of the reason.
The other part is that Nehru did not want to build up a rival to his daughter
who was much younger. More about this in the chapter on Indira!”{Mac/142}
NOT LIMITING THE TERM OF THE PM
If Nehru was a true democrat, he should have taken a page out of the US
Constitution, and limited the term of a prime minister to just two terms—
like the President of the US. Not only that, on completion of two terms
passing on the baton to one’s kin should also have been prohibited, to
ensure dynasties did not take over politics. Dynasties have a vested interest
in continuance at the expense of the nation. They also have a vested interest
in covering up all the wrong doings of the dynasty.
Following Nehru’s footsteps, you find a strange spectacle of people—
whether young or old, and whether in a political position or a bureaucratic
position or a position in a sports body—not wanting to ever quit. Where
extension is not possible, bureaucrats would seek some position or the
other, post retirement. Officials of sports bodies—whether a politician or a
retired-IPS or a businessman or any other—wish to continue for life!
Contrast this with George Washington, co-founder of the USA. He was
proclaimed the “Father of the Country” and was elected the first president
of USA in 1789 with virtually no opposition. Washington retired in 1797,
firmly declining to serve for more than eight years—two terms—despite
requests to continue. His tremendous role in creating and running America
notwithstanding, he didn’t harbour or propagate self-serving notions of
indispensability. The 22nd amendment to the US constitution setting a
maximum of only two terms for the president came only in 1947. Prior to
that it was only an observed good practice for over a century. Thomas
Jefferson, the 3rd President and one of the founding fathers of the US,
famous for his many achievements and for having originally drafted the
Declaration of Independence of the US in 1776, was also requested,
pressurised and persuaded to consider continuing as President after
completion of two terms in 1808, on account of his excellent performance
on multiple counts—during his tenure the geographical area of the USA
almost doubled, upon purchase of Louisiana from the French, which in turn
ended the dispute about the navigation of the Mississippi. However,
stressing the democratic and republican ideals, he refused, even though
there was no legal bar then, and people would have loved him to continue.
NOT APPOINTING A SUCCESSOR
Writes Perry Anderson, Professor of History and Sociology at UCLA:
“For the rest of the union, the lasting affliction of Nehru’s rule has been the
dynastic system he left it. He claimed to reject any dynastic principle, and
his capacity for self-deception was perhaps great enough for him to believe
he was doing so. But his refusal to indicate any colleague as a successor,
and complaisance in the elevation of his daughter—with no qualifications
other than her birth for the post—to the presidency of Congress, where
Gandhi had once placed him for his own trampoline to power, speak for
themselves.”{URL8}
He did not appoint a senior cabinet minister or a deputy prime minister
to function in his absence when he went abroad. A responsible prime
minister would have done so, and would have scotched all speculations on
“After Nehru, who?” But he deliberately did not do so both to show to the
world how indispensable and irreplaceable he was, and to make way for his
daughter. Nehru thus sacrificed national interests for personal dynastic
interests.
Wrote Walter Crocker: “It is no less strange that Nehru clung to office
for so long. It would have been of help to the cause of parliamentary
democracy in India if he had stood down...This is what Kemal Ataturk
did...For one thing his long domination sapped the opposition; the
opposition is an essential part of parliamentary democracy...”{Croc/55}
His mentor, Gandhi, took care to appoint him as PM, and never
promoted his own progeny. Nehru, despite having ruled too long, did not
think it fit to pass the baton to anyone, even though it was not as if the
country was doing great during his time, and his not being there would have
adversely affected the nation. On the contrary, with him not there, things
might have improved, provided, of course, the baton had not been passed to
his daughter!
Contrast Nehru with Sardar Patel, who had told his son and grandson,
when they visited him after he suffered a heart-attack in Delhi: “As long as
I am in this chair, don’t visit Delhi, unless I am unwell and you have to see
me...All sorts of people will contact you. Take care.”{RG/473}
TAKEN SHAME OUT OF DYNACRACY
Democracy grafted on a nation with a strong feudal mindset is likely to
degenerate into dynacracy, unless the leaders who matter consciously
devote themselves to ensuring it does not happen, both by setting an
example themselves and by putting in place appropriate systems. Nehrus
did the reverse. The dynastic politics that Nehru started and thus sanctified,
and what was even more shamelessly promoted by his daughter, has now
vitiated and poisoned our whole democratic system. Following in the
footsteps of Motilal, Jawaharlal and Indira, now most leaders promote their
own dynasty in politics. We are now already in the era of blooming
dynacracy! It has become all pervasive and has vitiated and poisoned our
democratic system. The whole democratic process would soon get reduced
to jockeying for power among select dynasties!
It’s not just Nehru’s heirs—we now have heirs in nearly every state.
Abdullah & Sons and Mufti & Daughter in J&K; Mulayam Singh Yadav,
Son & Family in UP; Badal & Sons in Punjab; Chautala & Sons, Hooda &
Sons in Haryana; Lalu-Rabri & Sons in Bihar; Sharad Pawar & Daughter &
Nephew, Thackery & Sons & Nephew in Maharashtra; YSR’s Family in
Andhra; Karunanidhi & Sons in Tamil Nadu; and, of course, spouses and
sons and daughters and relatives of many other politicians. Many legislative
and parliamentary constituencies are now private estates.
As per a study detailed in Patrick French’s book, India: A Portrait, about
28.6% of the MPs in the Indian parliament are HMPs—Hereditary MPs.
Even more revealing are the figures that while over two-thirds of the 66
MPs aged 40 years or less are HMPs, all the MPs below 30 are HMPs!
Going by this trend, we would soon be back to where we were in the
“good” old pre-independence period: ruled by hereditary rajas and
maharajas and princes. Strangely, this trend was started by the one who
vexed most eloquent against rajas, maharajas and the feudal setup in the
pre-independence days—Jawaharlal Nehru.
Quite inappropriately, the current younger political leaders from the
dynasties, who have got the position for free, thanks to the power-structure
built by their parents, are being called by the media young turks! How can
the successors in the dynastic-line be ever young turks! They may be
young, but certainly not turks. The nomenclature “Young Turks” or “Jön
Türkler” in Turkish came to signify young reformists and revolutionaries—
not the dynasts and the status-quoist lording over their parental turf that the
current Indian crop is.
How can a person like Nehru who introduced dynastic politics into India
be called a democrat?
The biggest menace threatening India is not corruption or lack of
governance or reforms or Babudom, but dynasty, because that is at the root
of all others. India is not really a mature democracy, it is actually a
hereditary, dynastic democracy—a dynacracy. Or a nepoticracy, feudocracy,
or chamchacracy.
In fact, among the biggest crimes of the Nehru Dynasty is that they have
taken the guilt and the shame out of dynastic politics, and have encouraged
others to follow suit, through their example.
ENSURING SELF-PUBLICITY & DYNASTIC RECALL
An interesting thing is the Children’s Day—14th November, Nehru’s
birthday. In the “good” old days it used to be celebrated with much fanfare.
It used to said, and perhaps it is propagated so even now, that Nehru loved
children, and hence, his birthday was celebrated as the Children’s Day.
However, you realise that all love children. There could be a negligible
psychic minority who hate children or do not like or love them. An
overwhelming majority loves them. Then, what was so special about
Nehru? Upon analysis, you conclude that this was yet another way of
obtaining free publicity and acceptability for the dynasty. Influence people
from the childhood itself to be pro-dynasty! Popularise yourself with a wide
audience very conveniently. Make them all—both children and parents—
feel positively and lovingly about you. Did Gandhi not love children? From
what one has read, he cared much more. In fact, it has been mentioned that
Nehru was distinctly uncomfortable with children. Did Gokhale or Tilak or
Rajaji or Sardar Patel or Ambedkar not love children as much as Nehru did?
Wrote Rustamji:
“Few would know that his [Nehru’s] attitude towards children was
not what people believe—a desire to play with tiny-tots. In fact, the
really small ones he never tackled. In my six years with him, I have
never seen him taking a baby in his arms; nor were they the
receivers of his attention.”{Rust/72}
“JN [Jawaharlal Nehru] built up his image in very clever ways.
Even after knowing him for nearly six years, I was not in a position
to say which was the real Nehru and which was the sham. When he
bent down to lift up a child, or throw a garland at a woman, I
wondered whether it was for the camera or for his popularity that he
did it… He was putting on an act all the time; acting well
undoubtedly, but acting all the same and for what?”{Rust/124}
Then, you have “namakarans” unlimited. Throw a pebble in any
direction anywhere in India. The statistical chance of it hitting something
named after Motilal or Jawahar or Kamala or Indira or Rajiv are
frighteningly high. Sharp dynastic practices indeed, artfully ensuring
massive free publicity at government’s cost!
Why JNNURM—Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission—
after Jawaharlal, under whose regime India was condemned to make do
with meagre, rickety infrastructure, and side-lane like highways. Why not
name it on someone like Visvesvaraya, the distinguished engineer, who was
the architect of Krishnarajasagara dam or Brindavan Gardens, and had
many engineering achievements to his credit?
Why JNU—Jawaharlal Nehru University? Nehru’s academic
achievements were rather modest. He was a graduate and had passed the
bar exams. Writes MJ Akbar: “Eventually when he [Jawaharlal] passed in
the second half of the second class, Motilal was relieved enough to
celebrate lavishly...Motilal was acutely terrified that his son might fail, so
even such moderate results were cause for celebrations...”{Akb/74-77}
Why IGNOU—Indira Gandhi National Open University? She was not
even a graduate! You see poor boys and girls in the most backward regions
of India doing graduation and post-graduation under trying circumstances,
and here you have a person, with all the financial and family support, and
even expenses for education abroad, not doing even graduation.
Then, why name these important, national universities after such
persons? Why not name them after Ambedkar who earned a double
doctorate from abroad despite heavy odds and extremely meagre resources?
Or, after other great academics or scientists like say CV Raman, the Nobel
Laureate, or SN Bose, or JC Bose, or Panini. Or, after other national leaders
like Dr Rajendra Prasad, Dr Radhakrishnan, Subhas Bose, Rajaji, Sardar
Patel who were also great academics. Dr Rajendra Prasad was a brilliant
student throughout his academic career, who acquired doctorate in law;
Dr Radhakrishnan was a distinguished scholar and a doctor in philosophy;
Subhas Chandra Bose was among the top scorers in ICS; and Sardar Patel
had topped the Barrister-at-Law examination in London.
What is the logic of Rajiv Gandhi International Airport at Hyderabad?
Why not name it after a genuinely great personality from Andhra Pradesh
like Narsimha Rao, thanks to whose liberalisation policies that international
airport came up in the first place?
Writes Tavleen Singh in an article The Indian Express: “In the villages
of Rajasthan some weeks ago, I was puzzled by people telling me that the
sarpanch had “gone to Rajiv Gandhi”. It did not take long to discover that
what they meant were the Rajiv Gandhi centres that dot rural Rajasthan. It
is still possible to meet people in villages who tell you that Indira Gandhi is
building houses for them as part of the Indira Awaas Yojana. It is wrong for
the national budget to be used to create false impressions about political
leaders, but since opposition leaders in Parliament have never objected at
Budget time, this malpractice has thrived.”
ELECTION FUNDING & VOTE-BANK POLITICS
Rajaji had advocated state funding of elections to help eliminate the
overwhelming advantages of money-power. He commented: “Elections now
are private enterprise, whereas this is the first thing to be
nationalised.”{RG3/390}
One of the main causes of corruption is election funding. That was the
only area for which Rajaji advocated nationalisation. But, Nehru did not
listen. Nehru nationalised what he should not have, and did not nationalise
what he should have—the state-funding of elections. Had he done so, one
could have said he was genuinely a true democrat. It would have helped the
poor opposition take roots in the nascent democracy. Opposition was
starved of funds. Besides, they did not have any publicity machinery at their
disposal. Government, hence Congress, monopolised radio, and it also used
carrot and stick to ensure the print-media was compliant.
As all the election funding was being received by the Congress—of
course, in expectation of quid pro quo—why would Nehru have tried to
strengthen the Opposition by arranging funding for them? Nehru took care
to jealously guard the large donations received by the Congress from
corporates.
When Rajaji, deeply concerned with Nehru's economic policies taking
India to dark ages, formed Swantantra Party with like-minded persons, and
fought the elections, Nehru dubbed them as pro-money-bags. Those
adjectives remained stuck to them, even though it was the Congress Party
which was getting all the money from the money-bags, and Swantantra
Party was finding it very hard to find money to fight elections.
Congress which tom-toms its secular credentials started its communal
politics from the Nehruvian era itself. Massive Muslim migrations from
East-Bengal were ignored to get Muslim votes to win elections in Assam
(Please refer the section on the Northeast). When asked, Nehru had advised
even a person of the stature of Maulana Azad to contest elections from a
predominantly Muslim area, despite Zakir Hussain’s hang-ups, keeping in
mind the secular faith of the Congress—vote-bank politics took precedence.
Since the Nehruvian times, Congress played on the insecurity of dalits
and Muslims to get their votes, without really doing anything concrete to
make them feel secure and equal citizens of independent India. Neither the
exploitation and ill-treatment of dalits was stopped, nor the communal riots
halted, nor were they offered better economic opportunities.
In short, the Nehru-Gandhi-Dynasty-perpetuation formula is this: Take
money from the corporates and the rich, as a quid-pro-quo, of course, for
money is essential to winning elections. However, engage only in pro-poor
talk publicly. Talk secular always, but play communal politics to get votes.
Project Congress as pro-poor, pro-minority, pro-dalit and pro-
disadvantaged. However, let the poor remain poor forever, and let the
minorities and dalits feel insecure forever—how else to get their votes? If
anyone questions why poor continue to remain poor and minorities and
dalits continue to feel insecure, blame others. Use carrot and stick to keep
MSM (Main Stream Media) on your side.
{ 10 }
Fault Lines
LEADERSHIP WEAKNESSES
But, why the results turned out to be so miserable for India even though
you can’t argue against Nehru being an honest, well-meaning, patriotic
person? Let us attempt an analysis.
Defective World View
Nehru’s notions and conceptualisations were defective, particularly on
economy and growth, on the basis of international relations and foreign
policy, and the ingredients that make a nation internally and externally safe,
strong and prosperous. All these have been discussed in detail in the earlier
chapters.
Dr Konrad Adenauer, the then Chancellor of the Federal Republic of
Germany, whom Winston Churchill once described as the greatest German
since Bismarck, wrote in the third volume of his ‘Memoirs’ pertaining to
the period 1955-9: “Nehru did not impress me as a realist. He struck me as
being all too ready to believe what fitted into his picture of the world… But
difficulties of deep political issues, he did not estimate rightly…”{Mac/111}
Wrote Walter Crocker in ‘Nehru: A Contemporary's Estimate’:
“Subhas Chandra Bose, Nehru’s rival in the pre-war Congress, and
the founder of the wartime Indian National Army under the
protection of the Japanese, thought, according to an intimate of his
whom I knew, that Nehru did not have the makings of a
ruler.”{Croc/146}
Undemocratic & Dictatorial Tendencies
Please see the earlier chapter “Dictatorial, Feudal & ‘Dynacratic’”.
Concentration of Power
Nehru was not satisfied by being head of the government and an all-
powerful PM—he wanted the party machinery also to be under his total
control.
Although already having critical responsibilities to fulfil as a Prime
Minister, with the additional charge of the External Affairs, “democratic”
Nehru took on the additional job as president of the party in 1951, by
manipulating his elevation, so as to become all powerful. The normal
practice in the Congress was not to give two posts to the same person, and
also to elect a new president each year. But, ignoring both the norms, Nehru
kept getting himself re-elected, and remained president for a continuous
term of four years. And, when he gave up the presidentship in 1954, he
made sure none of the subsequent presidents were of a stature who could
challenge him, and all were those who would remain subservient—UN
Dhebar from 1954 to 1959, followed by Indira Gandhi during 1959-60, N
Sanjiva Reddy during 1960-62, and D Sanjivayya during 1962-64.
Sanjiva Reddy had regretted that as a Congress president he was treated
“as Mrs Gandhi’s chaprasi”.{RNPS/24}
A Congressman wrote in 1963: “It is Nehru who has been largely
responsible for undermining the position of the organisation… under him
the feeling has grown that the Congress president had fallen to the position
of a head clerk.” Certain others described the position of the Congress
president under Nehru as “a glorified office boy”. {RNPS/23}
Not satisfied with being both the PM and the Congress President, or the
Congress President maker, Nehru insisted that the Congress Working
Committee (CWC) be selected with his approval—in fact, on the latter
issue he had even outmanoeuvred the then Congress President
Purshottamdas Tandon, forcing him to resign in September 1951.
Sycophants in the CWC left it to Nehru, and not the party, to select
candidates for the Lok Sabha and Vidhan Sabha, increasing Nehru’s clout
many-fold.
In the pre-independence period, and also up to the time of Gandhi and
Sardar Patel, Congress, as an organisation, was used as an instrument of
social change and progress. Nehru, after having wrested complete control of
the Congress Party organisation, rather than using it further, and more
intensely, for the same positive purpose, began to use it more to promote
himself, his daughter, and his chosen ones, and as an election machinery.
Wrote Frank Moraes: “Nehru was not without shrewdness or guile; like
Franklin D Roosevelt, he had something of the lion and the fox in him, and
none understood better the mechanics and manipulations of Indian
politics.”{FM/229-30}
Wrong Priorities
You don’t prioritise on what the government should be focussing on.
You exhaust yourself and your government doing what you should not be
doing—engaging in industry, business and trade; and usurping activities
best left to private individuals and companies—leaving little time, energy
and resources for doing what you should be doing.
Implementing Wrong and Unproven Ideas
Even though limited in academics and understanding of economics, you
consign India to the curse of socialism. Even when its adverse practical
results are apparent; thanks to your hubris, you don’t do course correction,
even though you claim to uphold scientific thinking!
Not Letting Other Leaders Grow
Wrote Rustamji: “The eminent historian, Sir Jadunath Sircar had said of
Aurangzeb: ‘With the death of the older nobility, outspoken, responsible
advisers disappeared from his council, and Aurangzeb, in later years, like
Napoleon I after the climax of Tilsit, could bear no contradiction, could
hear no unpalatable truth, but surrounded himself with smooth-tongued
sycophants and pompous echoes of his own voice.’ There were indications
that JN [Jawaharlal Nehru] in his later life became like Aurangzeb… What
the JN had done was to prevent, or at any rate, discourage the growth of any
other personality capable of taking over command when he laid it
down.”{Rust/209-10}
Love for Popularity
Popularity-driven decisions. Propensity to act or not to act based on
their possible effects on personal popularity. This prevented Nehru from
taking hard decisions. To remain popular he kept compromising.
Leaders are there to lead a nation to its rightful destiny, and not to
pander to the public on emotive issues to win elections to ensure their
(leaders) continuance. Leaders are not elected to respond to opinion polls
and the press and the public even if the cause they all support is wrong.
They are elected to serve and guide the nation in the right direction.
Remarked Rajaji: “Mr Jawaharlal used to tell me that he knew the
crowd mentality better than I or any of our other colleagues did. This is
probably true—not in the sense that he knows what the people want but in
the cruder sense of what would please them.”{RG3/383}
Love for Power and Dynasty
Nehru was more wedded to his own image-building rather than building
the nation. He wished to continue to remain popular even at the cost of the
nation because he didn’t want to give up power. Even though he had ruled
too long—and had not really delivered—he didn’t wish to empower others,
and pass on the baton. He held on to power so that, when the time came, he
could hand over the reins to his daughter. Please check the details in the
earlier chapter “Gift: Democracy or Dynacracy”.
Vice-like Grip on Media & Dissent
Dissent, open criticism, and multiple views are essential to running a
healthy democracy. They highlight wrong-doings and weaknesses, and help
in course-correction.
However, Nehru had such a vice-like grip on the government and the
party organisation that people were afraid to voice their opinions freely.
That’s why Nehru committed one mistake after other, with no one daring to
fault him.
All India Radio (AIR), the main vehicle of communication in those
times—there was no TV or social media—was exhaustively used by Nehru
for his self-propagation and opinion-formation. Opposition was given little
opportunity to use AIR.
Print-media was kept in like through carrot and stick. Even the whole
academia—schools, colleges, universities, research institutions, publication
divisions—were so managed that they only created positive image of the
PM and his policies, and helped favourable propaganda.
Not One, But a Series of Mistakes.
J&K problem is just for illustration. It was not as if Nehru unfortunately
made one mistake and India was burdened with the J&K problem—it was a
case of series of mistakes over the years. Not only was Nehru’s
understanding of the issues deficient, his analysis too was defective, and his
approach flawed, and thanks to his hubris, he refused to learn from his
mistakes and do course correction. That’s why he kept making one blunder
after another, messing up the whole J&K issue! You find a similar trend in
his disastrous approach to resolving India-China border dispute, or on
economic management.
ADMINISTRATIVE WEAKNESSES
Lack of Clarity & Inability to Take Decisions.
Nehru lacked clarity and grasp on vital issues. His inability to take
proper and timely decisions was, in a way, related to his lack of clarity on
matters and reluctance to act. Compare the decisiveness of Sardar Patel and
Netaji, and their ability to take action, with the fumbling ruminations of
Nehru.
These are the remarks of Rafi Ahmed Kidwai, a close friend and a
confidant of Nehru, from Durga Das’s book:
“You know, I never go to Nehru to seek advice or guidance. I take a
decision and just present it to him as a fait accompli. Nehru’s mind
is too complex to wrestle with the intricacies of a problem. Those
who go to him for advice rarely get a lead—and that only serves to
delay matters...Nehru does not understand economics, and is led by
the nose by ‘professors’ and ‘experts’ who pander to his whims and
fancies...We should have absorbed Kashmir for good and all...I do
not know where we are going. The country needs a man like
Patel.”{DD/379}
Wrote Brig. BN Sharma: “Consistency in thought and hard-headedness
in decisions were not Nehru’s strong points. Superficiality of thought and
confused thinking led him wondering into the realm of philosophy and
metaphysics.”{BNS/16}
Undemocratic and Feudal Mores & Arrogance
Please see the earlier chapter “Dictatorial, Undemocratic, Feudal &
‘Dynacratic’”.
Bad Judge of People & Situations. Not Action-Oriented.
All leaders need to be good judge of people and events. Leaders
themselves can’t tackle everything, they need to have competent colleagues,
reliable second-level leaders and officials under them to realise their
national objectives. A leader who is prone to sycophancy and is a poor
judge of people would normally end up with an incompetent team. Nehru
managed to have people like Sheikh Abdullah, Krishna Menon, BM Kaul,
BN Mullik and the like around him, each of whom let down India.
Nehru’s cabinet colleague and admirer Rajkumari Amrit Kaur had
remarked about Nehru:
“He is not a good judge of character and is therefore easily
deceived. He is not averse to flattery and there is conceit in him
which makes him at once intolerant of criticism and may even warp
his better judgement…”{ST/206}
Wrote Durga Das:
“Radhakrishnan, who laid down office of President in 1967, was
closely associated with Nehru for seventeen years or more. His last
homage to Nehru was a panegyric. Yet, to those very near him,
Radhakrishnan once confided that Jawaharlal was a ‘poor judge of
men’ and often extended his confidence and protection to unworthy
persons.”{DD/376}
Nehru was a bad judge of events and situations too. Here is what MO
Mathai wrote:
“Nehru was not a good judge of situations. After the partition of
India was decided upon, he visited Lahore in 1947. I was with
him… At a press conference in Lahore, Nehru held forth and
asserted that when partition was brought about, things would settle
down and both contending parties would want to maintain peace in
their respective areas. Most pressmen were sceptical. They asked,
‘What makes you think so?’ Nehru replied, ‘Forty years of public
life.’ We all know what happened subsequently.”{Mac/110}
On many vital issues, Nehru avoided taking actions where required. He
substituted inaction with rationalisations.
Loyalty, Sycophancy & Flattery, rather than Competence
Nehru preferred sycophants rather than the competents who may have
their own mind, and might differ. In short, he preferred ‘yes men’.
Wrote Rustamji:
“The one test which Nehru applied to men whom he took into the
inner circle was loyalty to him. It did not matter if a man had no
mind of his own. He must, however, have enough intelligence to
avoid irritation. He should be able to understand what the PM said,
and if he asked questions, he should do so intelligently so that an
opening may be provided for JN to amplify his points for another
half an hour or so… He must put all his faith in Nehru, believe in
Nehru, admire and adore Nehru, and say worshipful things now and
again which could be brushed aside with gratified
indifference…”{Rust/194}
“Another fault of JN [Jawaharlal Nehru] was that, like Aurangzeb,
he encouraged a peculiar form of flattery. In every forum, someone
or the other close to him, spoke in a flattering tone. He was never
rude to those people who kept praising him and his work, often in
ornate language.”{Rust/214}
Allowed Corruption & Nepotism to Flourish
This topic has been dealt with in detail earlier.
Wrote Rustamji: “Historians, when they assess our times, will probably
say that the biggest fault of Nehru was that he permitted corruption to
flourish all around him.”{Rust/213} It was not just corruption, it was severe
nepotism too.
Wrote Rajaji in Swarajya of 21.10.1961: “Does [Nehru] not realise that
a fine cadre of officials have now been made into spineless flatterers and
partisans?... I see Chief Ministers, finance and food ministers going about
extorting money for the party without fear or shame… I happen to
remember a time when such things could not be thought of…”{RG3/383}
No Delegation.
You don’t train others and give them an opportunity to develop. For
example, you retain foreign portfolio too, doing injustice both to that
portfolio and to your own job as PM. You invest overmuch time drafting
letters and replies and doing such sundry things, better left to people down
below.
Wrote Rustamji:
“No big decision could be taken in India by anyone, except Nehru.
He kept about and below him men who would always turn to him
for decisions, or who, if they took decisions would soon be told that
they were wrong… How did this work in practice? It meant that on
every major problem when there was a doubt about government
policy, that doubt would be removed by the PM… There were good,
clever men, advisers in the government, who were able to read the
PM’s mind, or make an accurate forecast of the way he would think.
But these men did not exercise their own critical judgement. They
merely anticipated a decision which could be easily done. If it could
not be easily anticipated, they awaited the Oracle’s
pronouncement… Modern government is such a complex affair that
if a policy is uncertain, those who function at a distance (like
ambassadors and delegates to the UN) or lower below (like Under
Secretaries) are constantly kept guessing.”{Rust/72}
Wrote MO Mathai:
“Nehru saddled himself with more than one portfolio—External
Affairs and Atomic Energy and Scientific Research—on a
permanent basis. Externa] Affairs, not so much Atomic Energy and
Scientific Research, needed a great deal of administrative attention.
Nehru had neither the aptitude, the patience, the inclination nor the
temperament for the drudgery of attention to details. In fact he was a
man whose policies could be largely defeated at the level of details
by scheming men. Nehru’s choice of junior ministers directly under
him left much to be desired. In any event, having been for so long
his own secretary during his long career as a political leader, Nehru
never learned to delegate. With only one exception, the junior
ministers under Nehru were the most neglected and disgruntled ones
in the whole government.”{Mac2/L-2901-7}
“One day S.K. Patil asked me privately why the Prime Minister was
not encouraging any one or a group of colleagues to come up. I
replied that he might as well reconcile himself to the fact that
nothing would grow under a banyan tree.”{Mac2/L-2914}
Poor Administration
Wrote Durga Das: “Curzon [Viceroy, British-India, 1899–1905] was an
adept at cutting the Gordian knots into which ponderous files had tied a
problem over the years. There were few administrative problems he would
not himself tackle, zealously and with conspicuous success. Nehru, on the
other hand, was more concerned with enunciating doctrines; he had little
patience with the details of administration. When confronted with the need
for a decision, he would skirt round, weighing the pros and cons, tormented,
as it were, by the spirit of self-questioning. Nehru’s genius lay in
romanticising politics, not in the sphere of administration.”{DD/48}
On the basis of what MN Kaul, Lok Sabha Secretary and a close
observer of Nehru for many years, told him, wrote Durga Das: “Nehru did
not pull his Ministers up when they deserved this treatment. In fact, he was
very soft on them. Nehru could not master the administrative machinery. He
never rebuked any wrong doer… He bowed before challenged like the
language issue and his troubles multiplied. He could never pick out an
administrator who could put his ideas into effect.”{DD/380}
ARROGANT, CONCEITED & FULL OF HUBRIS
Nehru regarded himself as a great academic and intellectual, a highly
knowledgeable individual, an internationalist and an expert in international
affairs, liberal, modernist, rational, of ‘scientific’ temperament and
thinking, and someone who knew what was best for the Indian economy,
and indeed for all aspects of the Indian polity and people. Not just that, he
was conceited enough to look down upon most as lesser beings, labelling
them in a derogatory way, or using choice adjectives for their remarks or
thinking—‘childish’, ‘juvenile’, and so on. The irony is that if one studies
in depth the various actions and the net result of those actions of Nehru in
various fields, one finds that Nehru actually had much to be modest,
apologetic, and regretful, and little to be conceited about—his naïveté in
statecraft was astounding! Those examples are covered under various
chapter and subchapters in this book. Intellectually, and in speeches, he
hated caste and communalism and exploitation in the name of religion, but
when it came to elections and votes, he did not hesitate to use and exploit
those very things.
Many wonder what made Nehru so full of hubris? It could certainly not
have been on account of his academics or his earnings or his books. If he
knew good English, so did many others. If he was educated in England, so
also many others. If he was westernised, so were many others. If he had
participated in the Freedom Struggle, so had thousands, and many had
actually sacrificed much more. If he thought he was exceptionally
intelligent and knowledgeable and a great leader, how come he made so
many blunders—all major, with severe long term adverse consequences for
the country. In fact, Nehru was able to dominate only because while he was
still active in politics, almost all his equals and superiors and potential rivals
died—Gandhi, Subhas Bose, Patel, Ambedkar.
This “arrogance” aspect of Nehru is not being highlighted as a personal
negative. Because, if it were just that, one may ignore it. It actually had
harmful consequences for the nation. It came in the way of others sharing
their opinions with him freely—they were afraid of his temper and
arrogance. This prevented him from heeding sane advice of others and
doing course-correction even when things were going down-hill. He made
blunder after blunder with no one daring to counsel him.
While in England he wrote to his father, Motilal, in July 1910: “My chief
reason for wishing to go to Oxford is Cambridge is becoming too full of
Indians!Such airs from the grandson of the policeman, Gangadhar Nehru!
{Wolp2/23}
Nehru’s white skin, his education in Eton and Cambridge, his
westernised upbringing, and his identification with the English mores
perhaps made his feel he was entitled to be as arrogant as the English, and
as contemptuous towards the natives.
Nehru was completely out of touch with the Indian life even of his time,
except with the life of the self-segregating Anglicised set of upper India who
lived in the so-called Civil Lines,” observed Nirad Chaudhuri in his
‘Autobiography of an Unknown Indian, Part-II’{NC2}. Chaudhury says that
Nehru had little understanding of the actual India life or culture or of
Hinduism; and was a snob, contemptuous of those who spoke English with
an Indian accent.
It has been said by many that it was Nehru’s intransigence and
arrogance post-1937 elections that caused irreparable rift with the Muslim
League, and contributed to the call for the formation of Pakistan by Jinnah.
However, that may be far-fetched. If it suited Jinnah’s interest to give a call
for Pakistan, he would have given the call, quite irrespective of other
factors.
In a conference of Asian-African countries in 1955, the then PM of Sri
Lanka, John Kotelawala, took some pot-shots at communism and Soviet
colonialism. Nehru later accosted him and asked him in an admonitory tone
why he had not shown his speech to him beforehand. Pat came the reply
from John Kotelawala to Nehru, Why should I? Do you show me yours
before you give them?{CT}{Mac/191}
Sankar Ghose in his ‘Jawaharlal Nehru, a Biography’ quotes Zhou
Enlai’s comment of October 1964, about five months after Nehru’s death: “I
have met many leaders of the world...I met Khrushchev. I met Chiang Kai-
shek, I’ve met American generals. But I have never met a more arrogant
man than Nehru. I am sorry to say this, but this is true.”{SG/304}
In a lighter vein, it is also said that Zhou Enlai was in fact so highly
cheesed off with Nehru's condescending behaviour that he inflicted India-
China war to avenge it! During his talks with Kissinger, he was reported to
have said that Nehru had become so cocky that China decided to put down
his cockiness.
Nehru had visited the US in 1961. Wrote Kuldip Nayar:
“Kennedy organised a breakfast meeting between Nehru and top US
economists and foreign policy experts. Nehru was late for the
meeting and generally monosyllabic in his responses. The breakfast
ended in 20 minutes. Some of them reported this to Kennedy who
remarked in the presence of his aides that Nehru had ‘lived too
long’.”{KN}
Says Dalai Lama in his autobiography ‘Freedom in Exile’:
“I [Dalai Lama] then explained [to Nehru] that I had not originally
intended to seek India’s hospitality [feeling let down by Nehru’s
attitude] but that I had wanted to establish my Government at
Lhuntse Dzong. Only the news from Lhasa had changed my mind.
At this point he [Nehru] became rather irritated. ‘The Indian
Government could not have recognised it even if you had,’ he said. I
began to get the impression that Nehru thought of me as a young
person who needed to be scolded from time to time. During other
parts of the conversation he banged the table. ‘How can this be?’ he
asked indignantly once or twice. However, I went on in spite of the
growing evidence that he could be a bit of a bully...”{DL/160-1}
Reportedly neither Viceroy Linlithgow nor Wavell gave any importance
to Nehru. Many British found Nehru to be vain and supercilious. In their
dealings after Indian independence, the Americans too found Nehru to be
arrogant.
Brig. BN Sharma narrates an episode in his book ‘India Betrayed’ which
is upsetting. The author, then a young boy, lived in Shri Gandhi Ashram,
Meerut, where his uncle was General Secretary. Nehru was to come to
Meerut to deliver an election speech for Provincial Assembly Elections of
1937 at the Town Hall. Upon arrival he was angry at the arrangements. A
man responsible for the arrangements bowed before Nehru with folded
hands requesting him not to leave. However, in full public view of
thousands crowding the place, Nehru kicked the man, already prostrate at
his feet, and kept doing so. Everyone was shocked and dismayed. Kripalani
then physically pulled Nehru away. To the young mind of the author, this
left a deep mark.{BNS/2-4}
The author writes that Nehru was arrogant, and that he exulted in public
display of anger. Nehru perhaps considered it a sign of royalty to be short-
tempered and to show one’s temper, and anger and impatience publicly.
Perhaps Nehru had not read this wise remark of Aristotle: “Anyone can
become angry—that is easy, but to be angry with the right person, to the
right degree, at the right time, for the right purpose, and in the right way—
that is not within everybody's power and is not easy.”
MJ Akbar in ‘Nehru: The Making of India’ writes about an episode in
the pre-independence period of a number of poor villagers from the villages
near Allahabad approaching him to verify their actual extremely pathetic
condition first-hand. Nehru was not particularly enthusiastic about taking
up the mission, particularly in the hot summers. However, He was touched
when he learned that hundreds of ill-clad villagers had built roads for him
overnight so that his car could take him to the innermost recesses of rural
India; and saw the eagerness with which they physically lifted his car when
it got stuck in the soft mud. After all, he was still an Indian sahib in a hat
and silk underwear.”{Akb/129}
‘INTELLECTUALISM’, ACADEMICS, SPEECHES & WRITINGS
Nehru’s academic achievements were rather modest. He was a graduate
and had passed the bar exams.
Writes MJ Akbar in ‘Nehru: The Making of India’:
“Eventually when he [Jawaharlal] passed in the second half of the
second class, Motilal was relieved enough to celebrate
lavishly...Motilal was acutely terrified that his son might fail, so
even such moderate results were cause for celebrations... Motilal
had set his heart on sending his son to the Indian Civil Service...He
called the ICS the ‘greatest of services in the world’... But the weak
Second [class of Jawaharlal Nehru] at the end of Cambridge
persuaded Motilal that his son was unlikely to get through the tough
ICS examinations...His [Jawaharlal’s] expenditure in 1911 was
£800, enough to pay for three years of an ordinary student’s
existence...”{Akb/74-77}
Contrast this with Ambedkar who often skipped meals or ate frugally to
save money when he was studying in London. In ‘Dr.Ambedkar: Life and
Mission’{DK}, Dhananjay Keer mentions that Ambedkar subsisted in
London on mere £8 a month! That amounts to £96 a year. Compare this
with £800 a year of Nehru, which excluded expenses for several other
requirements that were separately arranged by Nehru’s father. Writes
Dhananjay Keer:
“After this the second round of reading began at his residence.
About ten at night the fire in the stomach seemed to suppress the
fire in the head and made Ambedkar wriggle. He was mad with
hunger. An Indian acquaintance of his had made him a present of a
bundle of thin crisp Indian wafers called papad. He secured a thin
tin plate to fry those crisp wafers. A cup of tea and four pieces of
papad would partly appease the intensity of his hunger...”{DK/45}
With all those handicaps Ambedkar graduated in Political Science and
Economics from Bombay University in 1912. On scholarship from the
Maharaja of Baroda, he went to New York in 1913 and earned the degrees
of Master of Arts in 1915, followed by Doctorate in Philosophy in 1916
from the Columbia University. Thereafter, he went to London, where he
joined the Grays Inn for Law and the London School of Economics (LSE)
for Economics. He earned his second doctorate—Doctor of Science—from
LSE. He also became a barrister.
While Nehru scraped through graduation, Sardar Patel had topped in his
exams in London. Subhas Bose was a brilliant student at Cambridge who
had also cleared ICS exam. Dr Rajendra Prasad was a great scholar who
always topped in his class—his examiner had once written a comment on
his answer sheet: “examinee is better than examiner”.{Aru/159}
Wrote Brig. BN Sharma:
“Nehru admitted to the Harrow Public School, with the influence of
his father, never rose in his studies above mediocrity and predictably
had a poor legal practice later on. He never distinguished himself
either in pursuit of education and knowledge or a single minded
devotion to a cause. Nehru was born to greatness and a great part of
the credit goes to his father… We Indians have a weakness for white
skin… Nehru was inevitable beneficiary of this Indian
psyche…”{BNS/7}
Writes Perry Anderson, a British historian and political essayist, and
Professor of History and Sociology at UCLA:
“Nehru had enjoyed the higher education Gandhi didn’t have, and
an intellectual development not arrested by intense religious belief.
But these advantages yielded less than might be thought. He seems
to have learned very little at Cambridge, scraping a mediocre degree
in natural sciences that left no trace thereafter, did poorly in his bar
exams, and was not much of a success when he returned to practise
law in his fathers footsteps. The contrast with Subhas Chandra
Bose, a brilliant student of philosophy at Cambridge, who was the
first native to pass the exams into the elite ranks of the Indian civil
service and then decline entry to it on patriotic grounds, is striking.
But an indifferent beginning is no obstacle to subsequent flowering,
and in due course Nehru became a competent orator and prolific
writer. What he never acquired, however, was a modicum of literary
taste or mental discipline. His most ambitious work ‘The Discovery
of India’ which appeared in 1946, is a steam bath of Schwärmerei
[sentimental enthusiasm]. It would be unfair to compare Nehru to
Ambedkar, the leader of the Untouchables, intellectually head and
shoulders above most of the Congress leaders, owing in part to far
more serious training at the LSE and Columbia. To read Ambedkar
is to enter a different world. “The Discovery of India”—not to speak
of its predecessor, “The Unity of India”—illustrates not just Nehru’s
lack of formal scholarship and addiction to romantic myth, but
something deeper, not so much an intellectual as a psychological
limitation: a capacity for self-deception with far-reaching political
consequences.”{URL7}
Wrote Rustamji: “On certain occasions, when he [Nehru] had to tell a
story, as for instance at a dinner party, he came out with such antiquated
ones that one could hardly laugh… He [Nehru] did use wit and humour
sometimes in public meetings, but there again the stuff used was
juvenile…”{Rust/56}
Wrote MO Mathai: “Contrary to the general impression, neither
Churchill nor Nehru were widely-read men. They wrote and spoke more
than they read in their lives.”{Mac/55}
Books written by Nehru are good, but not great. Nehru’s books betray
no research, or breaking of any fresh ground, although they are readable.
His works cannot be considered as works of scholarship. What he wrote in
‘Glimpses of World History’ and ‘Discovery of India’ are re-narration of
the published material, mostly by the British, with their British bias. There
is nothing new to learn from it, even at the level of new conclusions or
ideas. In parts, it is also wrong on facts and conclusions. His treatment of
subjects in his books are superficial. You find no critical appraisals of the
topics he dealt with in his books—whether on history or on politics or on
economics.
You find Nehru devoting several chapters to socialism and Marxism in
his book ‘Glimpses of World History’ without dealing with the reported
pathetic state of affairs in Russia. His treatment is more romantic than
critical. He talks of Marxism, but there is no contrasting coverage on Adam
Smith and others, or on the most robust economy of the time—that of the
US. There is little attempt in his books to critically assess and evaluate
competing options. He talks of state controls and its benefits in his chapter
on Marxism, never once questioning that the state itself could be mafia-like,
and the biggest exploiter. It is presumed that the state would be a nice, just,
empathetic, kind do-gooder, full of compassion. Further, he does not touch
upon things like entrepreneurship, individual initiative, and such other
critical factors. In the absence of a holistic coverage on the vital aspects that
affect economy, his treatment appears no more than just a superficial story.
Nehru fancied himself to be a student of history, international relations and
foreign policy—actually, a master of these subjects, going by the books he
wrote and the way he pontificated—but sadly, he ignored lessons from
history, as the results of his policies proved.
Wrote Brig. BN Sharma: “Nehru had read widely but not wisely. His
knowledge did not bless him with humility. He had many beads of
knowledge, but there was no running thread. His philosophy of action was
fragmented to a fault. Exactitude, mastery of detail and sense of timing
were not Nehru’s strong points. His romantic love for the antiquity of this
great country was like the awestruck hypnotism of a juvenile and not a
deeper understanding of a mature man that could enable him to assimilate
its millennia old spirit. On issues of great national concern, he could fret
and fume but could not initiate cool, reasoned, timely and effective action.
This was amply evident during the Kashmir crisis, Hyderabad action and
the Chinese Boundary Dispute and subsequent military action… Likewise,
there was a certain kind of superficiality about Nehru that could go
unnoticed by a less perceptive observer. Inspite of long hours at work, he
lacked a deep insight into any vital issue. It was the veneer of superficiality
and concomitant emptiness, as described above, that made it difficult for
Nehru to sustain himself during adverse political weather or national
crisis.”{BNS/403}
In sharp contrast, if one goes through the writings of Ambedkar, one
finds them to be works of vast, in-depth study, powerful analysis, and
brilliant and perceptive understanding of issues; quite unlike the fluffy
romanticism, airy views and superficial treatment of Nehru, and his attempt
at show off. Ambedkars views on religions, castes, Islam, Buddhism,
Pakistan, Kashmir, China, foreign policy and so on are worth reading.
Many praise Nehru’s English. But, going by his books and speeches,
one does not feel too impressed. People like Nirad Chaudhuri and many
others wrote much better English.
Nehru’s ‘Tryst with Destiny’ independence day speech delivered at
midnight of 14-15 August 1947 is much praised. But, what did he mention
in the speech: “…At the stroke of the midnight hour, when the world sleeps,
India will awake to life and freedom…” Why the world would be sleeping
then? Over half the world should be awake! Midnight in India would be
midday in Central USA, Canada, Mexico, etc.; and day-time in many parts
of the world. Wrote MO Mathai:
“The 'Tryst with Destiny’ speech delivered at the midnight meeting
of the Constituent Assembly on 14-15 August 1947 was written in
his own hand. When the typed copy and the handwritten draft were
delivered to me by the PA, I consulted Roget's International
Thesaurus and went to Nehru. I said ‘Date with Destiny’ was not a
happy phrase for a solemn occasion because the word date had
acquired an American connotation of assignation with girls and
women. I suggested its replacement with ‘tryst’ or ‘rendezvous’, but
cautioned that the phrase ‘Rendezvous with Destiny’ was used by
President Franklin Roosevelt in one of his famous wartime
speeches. He thought for a moment and changed date to tryst in the
typescript. The original handwritten draft with the word date
remained with me all these years and was handed over recently to
the Nehru Museum and Library along with innumerable documents
and photographs.”{Mac/11}
Nehru was unsuccessful in the profession he was trained in (a lawyer),
and could hardly earn any money. Both he and his family were dependent
upon his father for support. Motilal Nehru had once jokingly remarked that
on his meagre professional earnings Jawahar could not even sustain himself
and his wife.{BNS/107}
This was in sharp contrast to his adversary like Jinnah who had a roaring
legal practice, and was essentially a self-made man. This was also in sharp
contrast to his colleagues, Sardar Patel and Rajaji, who were very
successful lawyers earning fat income, and who willingly gave up their
practice on the call of Gandhi. Sardar Patel financed his own education—
and that of his elder brother, Vithalbhai, also a freedom fighter—at London
from the money he had earned as a lawyer in India. Of course, Nehru did
earn through royalty on his books.
Wrote Rustamji: “What I marvelled at was that he [Nehru] did not have
those doubts which all of us are plagued with when we monopolise the
conversation for a few minutes in a private drawing room. Could he ever be
feeling that he had talked too much? I suppose he never received the
‘choking offwhich all of us lesser mortals experience from wife, friend or
superior. JN [Jawaharlal Nehru] had reached a stage when nobody could
snub him, nobody could stop him from talking… I think it was a son of
Roosevelt who said that his father hated to be out of the limelight. At a
wedding, he would love to be the bride and at a funeral, the body…”{Rust/71}
Nehru showed himself off as a scientific-minded, rationalist, practically
an atheist, certainly an agnostic, critical of superstitions, opposed to
religious mumbo-jumbo and above all rituals. But, when it came down
starkly to himself, did he walk the talk? Jaaps were performed and maha-
mrityunjay mantra—the death-conquering mantra—was recited 4,25,000
times at his Teen Murti residence, which supposedly extended his life. Also,
reportedly about fifty priests were engaged to perform necessary religious
rites at the Kalkaji temple in Delhi—at the end of each day they used to put
an auspicious tilak on Nehru’s forehead.
{ 11 }
Summarising the “Invention”
Shashi Tharoor titled his book on Nehru, “Nehru: the Invention of
India”.
Admirers claim he was a great patriot. But, so were lacs of Indians.
Admirers claim he was the foremost fighter for independence, next only
to Gandhi. But, he was one among the scores of topline fighters for India's
Independence. That Gandhi and Nehru were the only two who mattered is a
deliberate, distorted projection of post-independent India ruled by the
Dynasty.
Admirers talk of his sacrifice for the nation and say he spent many years
in jails for the cause of freedom. But, so did many. So many other families
sacrificed everything, and far, far more than the Nehrus. There were many
who had no financial support, and whose lives, along with the lives of their
families, were wrecked by going to jail. Many lost jobs, and had nothing
when they were released from jails. Nehru and the other members of the
family, at least, had their rich father Motilal to always support them, when
alive, and the money and property left behind by him, when no more.
What is most noteworthy is that while many who suffered remained
faceless and unacknowledged, Nehrus enjoyed all the fruits of their
sacrifice—and many, many times more. It was the most profitable
investment they made, with returns thousands of times more, and through
the decades, for the whole dynasty and descendants!
Talking of suffering and sacrifices, many were tortured and whipped in
jails. Did Nehrus get that treatment? No. Nehru himself describes in his
book of severe whipping of other imprisoned freedom-fighters in jails. For
most Gandhiites, especially the top ones, the jails were, relatively speaking,
tolerable. That their life in jail was not all that terrible can be inferred from
an episode described by Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, who was in
Ahmednagar prison along with Nehru and others: Upon their remonstration
for serving them food on iron plates, the jailer had apologised and had the
plates replaced by China plates and dinner set. As the cook in the jail could
not prepare food to their taste, a better cook was soon appointed.
This is not to say that jail was fun place. It must have been a very dull
and tedious and an oppressive place, where you are cut off from the world.
And to be in jail for such long periods must have got on to their nerves.
However, at least, they were relatively better placed compared to non-
Gandhiite freedom-fighters, and lower-level Gandhiites.
Nehru had access to newspapers, magazines and books in Naini and
other jails. He also had ample supply of reading and writing materials. He
wrote ‘Glimpses of World History’ in Naini jail between 1930 and 1933;
‘An Autobiography’ during 1934-35 in Bareilly and Dehra Dun jails; and
‘Discovery of India’ between 1942 and 1946 in Ahmednagar Jail.
It is said that Sir Harcourt Butler, the then Governor of UP, had even
sent quality food and a champagne bottle to Motilal Nehru in his prison, out
of consideration for their association. They did not show similar indulgence
to others. Even Subhas Chandra Bose, who was a non-Gandhiite, was ill-
treated in prison, which severely affected his health.
Writes Nehru in his autobiography{JN2}:
“Personally, I have been very fortunate, and almost invariably, I
have received courtesy from my own countrymen and English. Even
my gaolers and the policemen, who have arrested me or escorted me
as a prisoner from place to place, have been kind to me, and much
of the bitterness of conflict and the sting of gaol life has been toned
down because of this human touch...Even for Englishmen I was an
individual and not merely one of the mass, and, I imagine, the fact
that I had received my education in England, and especially my
having been to an English public school, brought me nearer to them.
Because of this, they could not help considering me as more or less
civilized after their own pattern...”
Contrast the above with the fate of thousands of freedom fighters who
really suffered.
As we have seen before, the reasons for India gaining independence can
be summarised, in their order of importance or impact, as under:
(1)The precarious economic condition of the UK thanks to WW-II; and
their colonies, particularly India, becoming a huge financial drag, rather
than a source of income, for the UK exchequer.
(2)Realisation by the British that they can no longer trust the Indian
Army to suppress Indians and continue to rule over them, after the doings
of the INA under Subhas Bose. Indian Naval Mutiny of 1946 and Jabalpur
Army Mutiny of 1946, both partially provoked by the INA trials, had
further demoralising effect upon the British.
(3)Quit India Movement of the Congress. It happened in 1942—many,
many years prior to the grant of independence—and fizzled out in mere
months. There was no Congress movement after 1942 or anywhere near the
time the British started discussing independence of India in 1946. In fact,
many of the princes of the princely states and other lackeys of the British
were trying to impress upon the British not to leave, as there was little
pressure upon them to do so.
If one were to assign weightages to the above factors, the weightage-
percentage would be about 60%, 35%, 5% for (1), (2) and (3) respectively.
It is also worth noting that even though the initial date of their leaving was
fixed as June 1948, the British preponed it to August 1947. Why? They
themselves didn’t wish to continue.
Therefore, it is inappropriate to accord overmuch credit to the Congress
or to its leaders for the independence of India.
Congress dragged on with its independence movement for too long a
period of forty years—tiring and sapping all! Despite that, it remained a
minor factor in gaining independence for India. Compare this with George
Washington and team who attained their aim within eight years of fighting
with the British—creating a new nation. Or, compare this with the South
American leader Simon Bolivar of Venezuela, after whom the country
Bolivia was named, who liberated not just one, but six countries from the
Spanish rule—Venezuela, Colombia, Panama (included in Colombia at that
time), Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia! And, he achieved all this through his
military campaign lasting mere 13 years. He died at a relatively young age
of 47.
Admirers claim Nehru was the builder of modern India. Is one referring
to “modern” India, with broken-down, side-lane-like highways, run-down
Fiats and Ambassadors, meagre second world-war armaments to take care
of its security, perennial food shortages, famines, both hands holding
begging bowls?
He did set up a string of research labs, But, they did little, and became
money sinks.
Admirers claim he promoted industrialisation. Industries in Public
Sector, that became a heavy drain—yes. Industrialisation in general—No.
He actually strangulated private enterprise, severely limiting
industrialisation. And, worse, he neglected that most crucial sector—
agriculture!
The critical first seventeen years after independence should have laid a
concrete foundation for India’s industrial, agricultural, administrative,
political, educational, and cultural regeneration, and should have catapulted
India towards a first-world nation; instead the Nehruvian years laid the
foundation of India’s unmitigated misery.
He was reportedly hard-working. But, inadequate delegation is not good
leadership. He should have delegated and trained others. It is said that he
was very particular about drafting letters and memos and so on and spent a
lot of time in it. Why draft yourself and waste time. Let a competent person
do it. Let others get trained in it. In fact, by doing things himself, he was
depriving others the opportunity.
EVALUATING A LEADER : THE RIGHT APPROACH
Can a country attain greatness even if its leaders are Lilliputs; and vice
versa, can the country's leaders be considered great even if the country
goes to dogs—or remains wretchedly poor and achieves only a fraction of
what it could have?
--------------------
You can’t do justice to evaluating a person by just talking in general
terms like: “He was a great patriot...he sacrificed so much...he ensured unity
of India, as if under someone else, India would have got divided...he made
India a democratic country...he was founder of India’s foreign policy...and
so on.” For a fair evaluation, you have to adopt a right approach, a proper
set of rules, the “dos” and the “don’ts”:
Dos
Rule-1 (Dos)
When evaluating a national leader, evaluate his or her contribution to the
nation on a set of vital parameters, for example, GDP, Per-Capita Income,
Relationship with Neighbours, Internal Security Position, External Security
Position, Literacy Level, and so on. Determine those set of parameters at
the start of the tenure of that leader, and also at the end of his or her tenure.
Check the difference.
Rule-2 (Dos)
The above, by itself, is not sufficient. Some progress would anyway be
made with the passage of time. The point is whether the progress was as
much as it could or should have been. For example, say 5 IITs were opened
in 17 years. Could or should they have been 50? Were only 5 out of the
possible 50 opened? That has to be evaluated. For this, also determine a set
of developing, but fast-growing countries against whom you would like to
benchmark your performance. Evaluate the progress of those countries for
the same period. Compare.
Don’ts.
Rule-3 (Don’ts)
Do not mix the personal with the professional or the political. There is
little point offsetting poor political performance against good personal
traits, and vice versa. If you are evaluating a politician, evaluate political
contribution. Other aspects may be evaluated, but separately. For example,
Gandhi as a person must be evaluated separately from Gandhi as a
politician.
Rule-4 (Don’ts)
Greatness has nothing to do with popularity—media can be managed,
popularity can be purchased, general public can be manipulated and led up
the garden path. Nor has greatness anything to do with winning elections
and ruling for a long time. Hosni Mubarak ruled for 41 years—does that
make him great? Gaddafi had been ruling for decades—did that make him
great? The point is, after winning an election, what you did for the people
and the country. If you did little, you actually wasted the precious time of
the people and the country.
Rule-5 (Don’ts)
Don’t go by generalised descriptions or attributes that don’t measure the
real comparative position on the ground. For example, statements like, “He
was a great democrat, thoroughly secular, highly honest, scientific-minded
person who loved children and gave his all to the nation,” or, “He was my
hero, he inspired generations, and people loved him,” don’t help the
purpose of evaluation.
Rule-6 (Don’ts)
Don’t go by what the person wrote or spoke or claimed. A person may
talk big on lofty ideals and make grand claims, but the real test is what
concrete difference he made to the nation and to the lives of people—that
measurement alone is relevant. Did the person walk the talk? Did he really
help achieve the goals he talked about? I may make big claims on being
democratic. But, is my actual conduct democratic? Do I respect the opinion
of others? Or, do I act dictatorial? Am I above nepotism? Or, do I promote
my own? I may talk big against social injustice. But, has it substantially
come down during my tenure? Mere talking is not enough.
Unless a leader scores high as per rules 1 and 2, he or she cannot be
adjudged as great. This is quite logical. You do not evaluate Sachin
Tendulkar's cricket on his personal goodness, you evaluate it on his
performance on the field, on runs scored—not in isolation or as an absolute,
but in comparison with others. On these criteria, one can say that LKY—
Lee Kuan Yew—of Singapore was indeed a great leader.
You evaluate Ratan Tata for his business performance by evaluating not
Ratan Tata, the person, but the Tata Group—its actual business and
financial performance. What was the business and the financial status of the
Tata Group when Ratan Tata took over, and what was it when he
relinquished control; and how did it compare with the progress made by
other business houses. If the performance of the Tata Group is evaluated to
be bad, then it is the performance of Ratan Tata which would also be
evaluated as bad. You would not try to lessen Ratan Tata's bad performance
by either blaming his subordinates or colleagues; or offset the same against
his stellar personal qualities.
This is the right approach. You evaluate Ratan Tata or Mukesh Ambani
or Narayan Murthy by evaluating the performance of the companies they
are heading. If the companies are doing well, you give credit to them. But,
rare is a case where a company does badly or goes into bankruptcy, and you
still evaluate the person heading it as good and competent. Strangely, this
common sense approach goes for a toss when you try to evaluate a political
leader.
EVALUATING NEHRU
Nehru fails to measure up both as per Rule-1 and Rule-2. So, on all the
major factors, Nehru's balance-sheet is in deep red.
Here are extracts from Atanu Dey's Blog-post ‘Nehru and the Indian
Economy (…Why is India Poor?)’:
“...Economic policies matter. If you have sound economic policies,
you get commensurate economic performance. India’s economic
performance sucks. It performs dismally in any sort of ranking of
human development and economic performance tests. Half the
illiterates of the world call India their home. A third of all global
poverty is in India. All things considered, India has been a colossal
failure so far... Who makes economic policies? You? I? No,
economic policy is made by the so-called leaders and visionaries of
this sainted land. Who were the most powerful leaders of this land
since its independence from Britain? Nehru and his descendants. He
dictated policy—economic, foreign, domestic, you name it. The
most charitable way of putting the matter is to say that Nehru was
clueless... He wasn’t just clueless about this or that. His cluelessness
was all encompassing. He was clueless about foreign policy,
military strategy, domestic development,... you name it... the fact
remains that central planning was personally very convenient for the
Cha-cha [Nehru]... The children of Imperialism are not weaned on
the milk of humility; they are brought up on heady diet of hubris.
Nehru was an imperialist who believed that his destiny was to rule
the brown masses and he continually rejected sane advice. Look
deeply into any problem that India faces and you will see Nehru’s
finger-prints all over it. Take Kashmir. Who was it who let the
matter get out of hand? Nehru with his idiotic insistence that the UN
be called to mediate the dispute. Talking of the UN, who was it who
rejected the proposal that India take a seat in the permanent security
council? Nehru. There is not enough space here to go into all the
horrendous mistakes...”{URL35}
POSERS : ALTERNATE EVALUATION
If we were to alternately evaluate on the basis of a set of posers, the
questions would most likely be as under.
Were the Indian borders more secure and peaceful by the end of Nehru’s
tenure compared to what they were when he became the prime minister?
That is, were we better off with our external security?
The answer is a big NO.
Did India have all friends as its neighbours by the end of Nehru’s
tenure, thanks to his reputed foreign policy?
No. Friends like Tibet disappeared. China, a friend, became an enemy.
Sri Lanka gave you no "bhav"/weightage. Pakistan remained an enemy.
Was India a more respected nation by 1964, thanks both to our foreign
policy and our achievements?
Unfortunately, no. It became an object of contempt.
Was India’s internal security better by the end of Nehru’s tenure
compared to that at the beginning?
Again, no.
Did poverty decrease significantly in the 17 long years of Nehru’s rule?
No. Poverty and misery multiplied.
Did India become self-sufficient in food during Nehru’s tenure?
No. Rather, it became an international beggar.
Did India become a highly industrialised nation during Nehru's tenure?
No. India's industrial growth was actually throttled by Nehru thanks to
his socialist fad and putting severe restrictions on the private sector. Only
the grossly inefficient public sector expanded, financed among other
sources, by the British debt-repayment. Public sector became a huge
money-sink and a white elephant.
Compared to the nations in SE Asia, did India do better economically?
No. It was left far, far behind by them, even though India started off
with a huge advantage.
Did India emerge as a prosperous nation, 17 years after independence?
Certainly not.
Did literacy rate dramatically improve?
No.
Was the curse of untouchability eradicated? Was the lot of Dalits better?
No.
Did minorities, including Muslims, feel more secure?
No.
Did criminal-justice system improve to provide justice and security to
aam-admi?
No. We carried on with the callous colonial system, and actually made it
even worse.
Did elitist babudom become service-oriented and empathetic to the
poor?
No. Among the worst things that happened under Nehru, accentuated
later under Indira, Sanjay and Rajiv, was India's Babudom: the IAS-IPS-
IFS-IRS combine, those from the criminal-justice system, and the
bureaucracy lower down. Babudom is very intimately related to socialism,
poor rate of growth, continued poverty, injustice and misery. It became
more corrupt, self-seeking, indifferent and vicious.
Did corruption and dishonesty come down in the political and the
bureaucratic setup?
No. It got worse.
Unfortunately, it’s a series of “Nos”!
The above posers are not exhaustive, they are only illustrative in nature.
There are many more vital posers whose answers too are in the negative.
SQUANDERED ONCE-IN-A-LIFETIME OPPORTUNITY
What really pains one is that it was after hundreds of years that India
breathed free. Millions were fired with patriotic zeal, ready to sacrifice, and
do their utmost to show to the world what this grand, old civilisation was
capable of. They all wanted to disprove the British canard that without them
India would go to pieces and would become a basket case. India was far, far
richer than England when the English first arrived in India. However,
thanks to their loot and disastrous economic management, condition of
India became pitiable. India went from the richest to the poorest, under the
British. That was the time, after independence, to show to the world what
India would have been, had British not messed up.
Fortunately for Nehru, support was for the asking. There was no
opposition worth the name. He enjoyed unbridled supremacy over both the
government and the party for an overlong period of 17 years after
independence. He could do what he wanted. People were also fired up. It
was once in a millennium opportunity. The whole field was open to him.
India would never get such an opportunity again. Yet, he just frittered away
that once in a life time golden opportunity for the nation. He squandered his
political capital. Rather than proving the doubters wrong, Nehru proved
them right.
After the dark millennium of foreign rule, the Indians, particularly its
poor, looked forward to the sunshine lighting up their lives. Sadly and
painfully, the Nehruvian years and the Dynasty rule that followed
grievously belied those fond hopes.
Wrote Brig. BN Sharma:
“He [Nehru] could, but did not rise to the call of destiny and led the
country not to glory but ignominy.”{BNS/404}
“My chief attempt is to present the unrevealed Janus-like face of the
man [Nehru], who to a large extent, shaped the destiny of this
subcontinent called Bharat. Placed as he was at the steering wheel
of history… he had the power and the authority, unparalleled in
democratic polity, to chalk out a path for this country that could lead
to progress and glory. Instead, he dithered and fumbled and took us
where we stand today. To now correct the course, and reach our
rightful destiny, it is incumbent on all of us to know what went
wrong and why? It is difficult to imagine how a nation as well-
endowed as India in human and natural resources, with a headstart
on many other countries similar ly enslaved, crawled to its present
of [gross under] development. We are so far behind from where we
should have been. Even today, we are still freeing ourselves from
the intellectual bondage and ideological baggage of the
past…”{BNS/xi-xii}
Thanks to (one of the greatest blunders of) Gandhi, Nehru was (wrongly
and undemocratically) placed “at the steering wheel of history” overriding
the deserving Sardar Patel, for Nehru was a pathetic driver, with a wrong
and disastrous roadmap leading not to affluence, but to perpetual poverty
and misery; and woefully unskilled in the art of driving, managing and
governing a nation to prosperity and well-being.
Despite his unbridled and unquestioned supremacy over the government
and the party organisation that allowed him a free hand, Nehru failed to
deliver—while the positives he achieved in his overlong seventeen years of
rule were far, far less compared to the scope and possibility; the
overwhelming negatives hugely damaged the poor, nascent nation, and a
number of his decisions and acts resulted in severe long term adverse
consequences.
Nehru bequeathed a toxic political (dynastic and undemocratic),
economic (socialistic), industrial (inefficient and burdensome public and
state sector), agricultural (neglected and starved), geographic (most borders
insecure), administrative (incompetent and corrupt babudom), historical
(Marxist and Leftist distortion), educational (elitist, and no universal
literacy), and cultural (no pride in Indian heritage) legacy.
LEADERSHIP & ADMINISTRATIVE WEAKNESSES
Please check the earlier chapter ‘Fault Lines’.
DREAMER & AN IDEALIST?
Unable to rebut Nehru’s faulty handling of many issues like Kashmir,
India-China war, economy and so on, his admirers have invented an
innovative alibi: Nehru was a dreamer and an idealist! "Dreamer" implying
he had great vision, and "idealist" implying that he was a man of high
principles, lofty moral standards, and impeccably cultured and hence,
thanks to the machinations of his unprincipled adversaries, he lost out on
certain counts.
One would have highly appreciated Nehru as a dreamer if he had helped
millions realise their dreams that they had upon independence. Sadly, the
fond dreams of millions turned into nightmares! Was dreaming of a political
leader at the top-most responsible position an elitist luxury and an
indulgence afforded by the exclusive environs of Lutyen's Delhi!
Talking of "idealism" and "high principles", may one ask what were
those high principles that prevented Nehru from finding a negotiated
settlement of Indo-China borders? What was that lofty ideal that allowed
Nehru to mutely accept erasure of our peaceful neighbour, Tibet, as a
nation? What were those principled compulsions that drove Nehru to refuse
Tibet’s repeated pleading to raise its issue in the UN? What were those high
moral standards that forbade Nehru to ensure Sri Lanka treated its Tamil
citizens fairly? What was that idealism that allowed nepotistic promotion by
him of his daughter? Where was the great morality in protecting the corrupt
—which he tried for some of his colleagues? Was it conscionable for him to
continue as a prime minister after the debacle in the India-China war? Why
the cultural finesse of some of his acts upon the death of Bose, Patel and
Rajendra Prasad—highlighted earlier—are inexplicable?
Further, being a dreamer and an idealist may be excellent personal
qualities, but when evaluating a person politically and as a leader, the
relevant points to evaluate would be if the dreamer-idealist managed to
convert those dreams into reality for the masses and whether the nation
moved towards some great ideal.
INNOVATIVE COUNTERFACTUALS
Unable to eulogise Nehru on the basis of the actual facts, many
admirers, on the self-serving assumption that a person other than Nehru
would not have been able to do what Nehru did, resort to innovative
counterfactuals like: “Had it not been for Nehru India would not have
remained united and secular. But for Nehru, there would have been no
democracy and the citizens would not have enjoyed freedom...”
If facts don’t help you, go by presumptions and probabilities!
What if one advanced an alternate counterfactual and argued that an
alternate person (like say Sardar Patel or C Rajagopalachari) as prime
minister would have made India more united, more secure, more secular
and free from communalism, more democratic and much much more
prosperous, and India would have been well on its way to becoming a first-
world nation by 1964!
“GREATNESSBY DEFINITION
Often, when we talk of “greatness” of a political leader in India, it is
“greatness by definition”, not “greatness evaluated by factual, material
achievements"!
Very often you find Nehru evaluated as per rules 3 to 6 given earlier, the
“don’ts”. People—even intellectuals, social commentators, politicians,
senior journalists and writers—make generalised statements to eulogise
him, even as they show indulgence to his gross failures.
Unfortunately, this led to giving him a stature he didn’t deserve.
Falsehood is always harmful to the nation. He was so drunk on his own
false image that he arrogantly went about with his own “wisdom”, ignoring
or belittling others, and committed blunders after blunders, with no one to
stop him. Ultimately, it harmed the nation.
It didn’t stop at that. He was given such a projection, that his
descendants found it easy to claim the top-most position without working
for it or deserving it. So, those who unjustly praise or eulogise a national
leader do a disservice to the nation.
On wonders where Nehru would have been had he not been Motilal’s
son, and had Gandhi not anointed and sold him.
DIDNT HAVE IT IN HIM
A question therefore arises: Can a country attain greatness even if its
leaders are Lilliputs; and vice versa, can the country's leaders be considered
great even if the country goes to dogs—or remains wretchedly poor and
achieves only a fraction of what it could have?
Unfortunately for the millions of Indians, particularly its poor,
Jawaharlal Nehru, despite his best intentions, ended up as an all-round
comprehensive failure, unwittingly laying the foundations of India’s misery.
Sadly, Nehru’s dynasty, rather than retrieving India from the mess,
reinforced those blighted foundations.
Analysing and generalising from his handling, or rather, mishandling of
J&K accession, Chinese Tibet aggression, India-China border dispute,
Indian economy and host of other issues, you can’t help concluding that
there was a pattern to them, and that he did not really have it in him to do
justice to them.
Fooled by aura and publicity and projection by the Congress and the
media, Indian public placed too high a faith in his abilities, way out of
proportion to what he was capable of.
Of course, quite irrespective of the fact that the balance-sheet of the
Nehru-period was deep in red, it cannot be denied that Nehru was patriotic,
honest and meant well: it is another matter that his erroneous understanding
of economics, foreign affairs, external security and many more things led to
policies that proved disastrous for the country. Also, he was well-
intentioned. But, then, road to hell is often paved with good intentions!
REQUIRED: DENEHRUFICATION AND DEDYNASTIFICATION!
One may say: Why sweat over Nehru? He is long gone. Long gone—
physically. But, much of his thinking and policies still unfortunately
survive: even AAP has socialists and Nehruvians. It is necessary to
understand that he followed a wrong path, and the nation needs to gain
freedom from those ideas and forge ahead. There is nothing personal here.
Nobody has anything against Nehru, as a person. But, if thanks to his
policies, millions suffered, and thanks to the continuation of his policies,
millions continue to suffer, then it is not a dead historical question.
Freedom is not just political freedom. The meaningful freedoms for
individuals are freedom from hunger, freedom from poverty, freedom from
insecurity, freedom from life of indignity, freedom from injustice, freedom
from the stinking squalor of our metros, cities, towns and villages, freedom
from disease, freedom from corruption and nepotism, freedom from
illiteracy, freedom from ill-governance, freedom from kleptocracy, freedom
to advance in life, freedom to prosper, freedom to lead quality life, and
freedom to create quality life for our descendants.
Those freedoms Nehruvian policies deprived us of, and thanks to the
systems put in place by him, continue to do so; though, to some extent,
there has been a creative destruction thanks to the initiatives of Narsimha
Rao and Vajpayee, and now Modi.
To attain those freedoms, the two necessary pre-conditions are freedom
from the Nehruvian claptrap—deNehrufication, in other words; and
freedom from Dynasty, that is, deDynastification—freedom from dynasties
not only at the national level, but also at the state levels.
Wrote the historian Sita Ram Goel:
“Today (1982) I view Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru as a bloated Brown
Sahib and Nehruism as the combined embodiment of all the
imperialist ideologies—Islam, Christianity, the White Man’s Burden
and Communism that have flooded the country in the wake of
foreign invasions. And I have not the least doubt in my mind that if
India is to live, Nehruism must die. What I plead is that a conscious
rejection of Nehruism will hasten its demise, and save us from the
mischief it is bound to create further if is allowed to linger.”{URL52}
* * * * *
Bibliography
A Note on Citations
Citations are given as super-scripts in the text, such as {Azad/128}.
Citation Syntax & Examples
{Source-Abbreviation/Page-Number}
e.g. {Azad/128} = Azad, Page 128
{Source-Abbreviation/Volume-Number/Page-Number}
e.g. {CWMG/V-58/221} = CWMG, Volume-58, Page 221
{Source-Abbreviation} … for URLs (articles on the web), and for digital books (including Kindle-
Books), that are searchable, where location or page-number may not be given.
e.g. {VPM2}, {URL15}
{Source-Abbreviation/Location-Number}… for Kindle Books
e.g. {VPM2}, {VPM2/L-2901}
Bibliography
Column Contains
C1 Abbreviations used in citations.
C2 B=Book, D=Digital Book/eBook on the Website other than Kindle, K=Kindle
eBook, U=URL of Document/Article on Web, W=Website, Y=YouTube
C3 Book/Document/Web URL Particulars
C1 C2 C3
AD B Anuj Dhar—India’s Biggest Cover-up. Vitasta, New Delhi, 2012.
AD2 B Anuj Dhar—Back from Dead: Inside the Subhas Bose Mystery. Manas, New Delhi, 2011.
Adv2 U Lal Krishna Advani Blog—Dr. Munshi’s historic letter to Pandit Nehru: VP Menon calls it a masterpiece. Times of
India, 11-Oct-2013.
https://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/lkadvanis-blog/dr-munshi-s-historic-letter-to-pandit-nehru-vp-menon-calls-
it-a-masterpiece/
Akb B M.J. Akbar—Nehru : The Making of India. Roli Books. New Delhi. (1988) 2002.
Akb2 B M.J. Akbar—The Shade of Swords. Roli Books. New Delhi. 2002.
Art A Article “Nehru ditched Bose!” in Mumbai Mirror of 28 August 2005 (based on a biography of Dr VJ Dhanan, an INA
recruiting officer).
Aru D Arunima Kumari—Encyclopedia Of Bihar. Prabhat Prakashan. New Delhi. 2013.
https://books.google.co.in/books?id=18MwBQAAQBAJ
AS B Arun Shourie—Are we deceiving ourselves again? ASA Publ. Rupa & Co. New Delhi. 2008.
Azad B Maulana Abul Kalam Azad—India Wins Freedom. Orient Longman. New Delhi. 2004
BK B,
D
Balraj Krishna—Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel : India's Iron Man. Rupa & Co. New Delhi. 2005
https://books.google.co.in/books?id=sLr7z6gNcV0C
BK2 B,
D
Balraj Krishna—India's Bismarck : Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel. Indus Source Books. Mumbai. 2007
https://books.google.co.in/books?id=sLr7z6gNcV0C
BNS B Brig. (Retd) B.N. Sharma—India Betrayed : The Role of Nehru. Manas Publications, New Delhi. 1997.
Croc B Walter Crocker—Nehru: A Contemporary's Estimate. Random House India. Noida. 2008.
CT B,D Chris Tudda—Cold War Summits: A History, From Potsdam to Malta. Blooomsbury. London. 2015.
https://books.google.co.in/books?id=sM62CgAAQBAJ
C1 C2 C3
CWMG D,
W
Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi. Volumes 1 to 98.
http://gandhiserve.org/e/cwmg/cwmg.htm
DD B Durga Das—India: From Curzon to Nehru & After. Rupa & Co. New Delhi. 2009
DK B,
D
Dhananjay Keer—Dr Ambedkar: Life and Mission. Popular Prakashan. Mumbai. 1995.
https://books.google.co.in/books?id=B-2d6jzRmBQC
DL B Dalai Lama—Freedom in Exile: The Autobiography of His Holiness the Dalai Lama of
Tibet. Abacus. London. (1990) 2002.
DPM B,
DDwarka Prasad Mishra— Living An Era: India’s March to Freedom, Volume 2 . Vikas.
New Delhi. 1978.
DPM2 B,
DDwarka Prasad Mishra— The Nehru Epoch: From Democracy to Monocracy . Har-
Anand. New Delhi. 2001.
ES B Dr Edward C Sachau—Alberuni’s India. Rupa & Co, New Delhi, (1888) 2009.
FaM B Dominique Lapierre & Larry Collins—Freedom at Midnight. Vikas Publishing House. New Delhi. Tenth Imprint
2010.
FG1 U Francois Gautier Blog Post: Haunted by Macaulay’s Ghost. 16.Apr.2008.
https://francoisgautier.me/2008/04/16/haunted-by-macaulay%E2%80%99s-ghost/
FM B Frank Moraes—Witness to an era: India 1920 to the present day. Vikas. New Delhi. 1973.
Grov B,
D
Verinder Grover (ed.)—Vallabhbhai Patel. Political Thinkers of Modern India: Volume 18. Deep and Deep
Publications. New Delhi. 1993.
https://books.google.co.in/books?id=BN5tLDyc6eUC
HJS U Article ‘India pays for Nehru’ by A Surya Prakash. https://www.hindujagruti.org/news/3927.html
ITV U India TV Article ‘Why Gandhi opted for Nehru and not Sardar Patel for PM?’ by Raj Singh, 31-10-2015.
http://www.indiatvnews.com/politics/national/why-gandhi-opted-for-nehru-and-not-sardar-patel-for-pm-6689.html
JN B,D Jawaharlal Nehru—The Discovery of India. Oxford University Press. New Delhi. (1946) 1985.
http://www.rediff.com/freedom/0710jha.htm
JN2 B,D Jawaharlal Nehru—An Autobiography. Oxford University Press. New Delhi. (1936) 1982.
https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.98834/2015.98834.Jawaharlal-Nehru-An-Autobiography
JN3 B,D Jawaharlal Nehru—An Bunch of Old Letters. Asia Publishing House. New Delhi. (1958) 1960.
http://krishikosh.egranth.ac.in/bitstream/1/2027646/1/HS826.pdf
JN5 B,D Jawaharlal Nehru—Glimpses of World History.
Oxford University Press. New Delhi. (1934-35) 1989 Seventh Impression.
https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.108462
JNSW D Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru. Edited by S.Gopal. Second Series Volumes 1 to 61.
http://nehruportal.nic.in/writings
Kaul B Brij Mohan Kaul—The Untold Story. Allied Publ. New Delhi. 1967.
KC1 U Kumar Chellappan—Revealed: Nehru wanted to scuttle Sardar’s Hyderabad plan. The Pioneer of 30 October 2012.
http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.in/2012 /10/revealed-nehru-wanted-to-scuttle.html
KMM B KM Munshi—Pilgrimage to Freedom. Vol-1&2. Bhartiya Vidya Bhavan, Bombay, 1967.
KMP B,D KM Pannikar—The Founding of the Kahmir State: A Biography of Maharaja Gulab Singh 1792-1858. George Allen
& Unwin. London. 1953.
https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.59231
KN K Kuldip Nayar—Beyond the Lines. Roli Books. New Delhi. 2012. Kindle Edition.
KN2 B Kuldip Nayar—Between the Lines. Konark Publ. New Delhi. 2014.
Krip D J.B. Kripalani—Gandhi, His Life and Thought. Publications Division, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting. 1970.
http://www.mkgandhi.org/ ebks/gandhihislifeandthought.pdf
KS B Khushwant Singh—Truth, Love and a Little Malice: an Autobiography. Penguin, New Delhi, (2002) 2003.
Lala B R.M. Lala— The Joy of Achievement: A Conversation with J.R.D.Tata . Penguin. New
Delhi. 2003
MA B Lt Manwati Arya & Ram Kishor Bajapai—Judgment: No Aircrash No Death. Lotus, New Delhi, 2010.
Mac B M.O. (Mac) Mathai—Reminiscences of the Nehru Age. Vikas Publishing House. New Delhi. 1978.
Mathai was Personal Private Secretary/ Special Assistant to Nehru during 1946–59.
Mac2 B,D M.O. (Mac) Mathai—My Days with Nehru. Vikas Publishing House. New Delhi. 1979.
https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.147284
Mak B Makkhan Lal—Secular Politics, Communal Agenda : A History of Politics in India from 1860 to 1953. Pragun
Publication, DK Publ., New Delhi, 2008.
Mani B Inside Story of Sardar Patel: Diary of Maniben Patel: 1936-50. Chief Editor: PN Chopra. Vision Books. New Delhi.
2001.
Max B Neville Maxwell—India’s China War. Natraj Publishers. Dehradun. (1970) 1997.
C1 C2 C3
MB B,
D
Michael Brecher—Nehru: A Political Biography. Oxford University Press. London. 1959.
MCC B Mahommedali Currim (MC) Chagla—Roses in December. Bhartiya Vidya Bhavan, Mumbai, (1973) 2000.
MiM B Minno Masani—Against the Tide. Vikas, New Delhi, 1982.
MKN K MKK Nayar—The Story of an Era Told Without Ill-will. DC Books. Kottayam, Kerala. (1987) 2013.
MM B,
D
Maria Misra—Vishnu’s Crowded Temple: India since the Great Rebellion. Penguin. London. (2007) 2008.
https://books.google.co.in/books?id=GTTRzJzJ_W4C
Nag B,D Kingshuk Nag—Netaji: Lving Dangerously. Rupa, New Delhi, 2016.
https://books.google.co.in/books?id=duHwCgAAQBAJ
Nat1 U K Natwar Singh’s article ‘Jawaharlal Nehru and the Mountbattens’ in The Hindu of 14-Nov-2008.
http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-opinion/Jawaharlal-Nehru-and-the-Mountbattens/article15341646.ece
NC B Nirad C. Chaudhuri—Autobiography of an Unknown Indian, Part-II. Jaico Publishing House. Mumbai. 2011.
NC2 K Nirad C. Chaudhuri—Autobiography of an Unknown Indian, Part-II. Jaico Publishing House. Mumbai. 2011.
Nij B S Nijalingappa—My Life and Politics: An Autobiography. Vision Books. New Delhi. 2000.
PB B Prasenjit K Basu—Asia Reborn: A Continent rises from the ravages of colonialism and war to a New Dynamism.
Aleph, New Delhi, 2017.
PF B,
K
Patrick French—Liberty or Death: India’s Journey to Independence and Division. Penguin. London. 2011.
PF2 B,
K
Patrick French—India: A Portrait. Penguin. London. 2011.
R&R B,D Amiya Rao & BG Rao—Six Thousand Days: Jawaharlal Nehru, Prime Minister. Sterling Publ. New Delhi. 1974.
https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.118430
RG B,
K
Rajmohan Gandhi—Patel–A Life. Navjivan Publishing House. Ahmedabad. 2008 Reprint.
RG2 K Rajmohan Gandhi—Patel–A Life. Navjivan Publishing House. Ahmedabad. 2008 Reprint. Kindle.
RG3 B Rajmohan Gandhi—Rajaji–A Life. Penguin Books. New Delhi. 1997.
RG4 B Rajmohan Gandhi—Understanding the Muslim Mind. Penguin Books. New Delhi. (1986) 2000.
RG5 B,
DRajmohan Gandhi—Mohandas: A True Story of a Man, His People, and an Empire .
Penguin Books India. New Delhi. 2006.
https://books.google.co.in/books?id=TEyXCoc76AEC
RNPS B RNP Singh—Nehru: A Troubled Legacy. Wisdom Tree. New Delhi. 2015.
Roy D M.N. Roy—Men I Met. Lalvani Publishing House. Bombay. 1968.
http://lohiatoday.com/CollectedWorks/MNRoy/MMNR-09-MenIMet.pdf
Rust B PV Rajgopal (Editor)—I was Nehru’s Shadow: From the Diaries of KF Rustamji. Wisdom Tree. New Delhi. 2006.
Rustamji was Nehru’s Chief Security Officer between 1952 and 1958.
SD B,D Sandip Das (Edited By)—Jayaprakash Narayan: A Centenary Volume. Mittal Publ, New Delhi, 2005.
https://books.google.co.in/books?id=U9U0LiT3dtMC
SDG U Swapan Dasgupta blog-post titled ‘Rot stems from ill-conceived coal nationalization plan’ in The Times of India,
Mumbai of 20 October 2013.
https://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/right-and-wrong/rot-stems-from-ill-conceived-coal-nationalization-plan/
SG B,
D
Sankar Ghose—Jawaharlal Nehru, a Biography. Allied Publishers Ltd. New Delhi. 2006.
https://books.google.co.in/books/about/Jawaharlal_Nehru_a_Biography.html?id=MUeyUhVGIDMC
SH B,
D
Sanjoy Hazarika—Writing on the Wall: Reflections on the North-East. Penguin, New Delhi, 2008.
https://books.google.co.in/books?id=rXx2oczz9sYC
SP3 B,
D
For a United India: Speeches of Sardar Patel, 1947–1950. Publications Division, Ministry of I&B. 2017.
https://books.google.co.in/books?id=rPomDwAAQBAJ
SS B,D Sanjeev Sabhlok—Breaking Free of Nehru: Lets Unleash India! Anthem Press, New Delhi, 2008.
https://books.google.co.in/books?id=zU9utu7wZpQC
ST B Shashi Tharoor—Nehru: The Invention of India. Penguin Books. (2003) 2007.
TSR B TSR Subramanian—Journeys through Babudon and Netaland: Governence in India. Rupa, New Delhi, 2004.
TSR2 B TSR Subramanian—GovernMint in India: An Inside View. Rupa, New Delhi, 2009.
Tunz B Alex Von Tunzelmann—Indian Summer : The Secret History of the End of an Empire. Simon & Schuster. 2007.
URL7 U Article ‘Why Partition?’ by Perry Anderson. London Review of Books, Vol-34, No-14, 19 July 2012
https://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n14/perry-anderson/why-partition
URL8 U Article ‘After Nehru’ by Perry Anderson, Professor of History and Sociology at UCLA. London Review of Books,
Vol-34, No-15, 2 August 2012.
https://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n15/perry-anderson/after-nehru
URL18 U Jinnah's presidential address to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan on 11 August 1947.
http://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/legislation/constituent_address_11aug1947.html
C1 C2 C3
URL26 U Minute by the Hon'ble T. B. Macaulay, 2-Feb-1835.
http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00generallinks/macaulay/txt_minute_education_1835.html
URL27 U The Hindu, 9-Jan-1960: “Enquiry into charges
http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-miscellaneous/dated-January-9-1960-Enquiry-into-
charges/article15958471.ece
URL28 U Jawaharlal Nehru’s Presidential Address at the Lucknow Congress in 1936.
https://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/sections/britain/periodicals/labour_monthly/1936/05/x01.htm
URL34 U The complete truth about how Jawaharlal Nehru forced John Mathai to resign”.
http://indiafacts.org/complete-truth-jawaharlal-nehru-forced-john-mathai-resign/
URL35 U Atanu Dey's Blog-post ‘Nehru and the Indian Economy (…Why is India Poor?)’
https://deeshaa.org/2005/01/21/nehru-and-the-indian-economy-why-is-india-poor/
URL36 U Of Commonwealth & Majrooh
https://www.dawn.com/news/1073415
URL40 U How Bangladeshi Muslims wiped the Assamese out in their own land
http://www.assam.org/news/how-bangladeshi-muslims-wiped-assamese-out-their-own-land
URL41 U Nehru: Planning For Poverty’ by J Nair.
http://varnam.org/2013/05/nehru-planning-for-poverty/
URL42 U Nehru’s legacy – The Somnath Temple treachery.
http://www.opindia.com/2017/11/nehrus-legacy-the-somnath-temple-treachery/
URL44 U Anand Ranganathan.
https://twitter.com/ARanganathan72/status/922422036655366146
URL45 U Blog-post 'The loss of inheritance' by Gurucharan Das in ToI of 9-Sep-2012.
https://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/men-and-ideas/the-loss-of-inheritance/
URL46 U 2,600 cops serve in homes of IPS officers in state’ by Prafulla Marpakwar in ToI of 15-Oct-2013.
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/2600-cops-serve-in-homes-of-IPS-officers-in-
Maharashtra/articleshow/24168369.cms
URL47 U Blast from the past—Patel-Nehru letters expose the frauds in fund collection for NH”. By Team PGurus - December
9, 2016
https://www.pgurus.com/blast-from-the-past-patel-nehru-letters-exposes-the-frauds-in-fund-collection-for-nh/
URL52 U Article “Nehru As Seen By A Hindu Nationalist” by NS Rajaram in IndiaFacts.org dated 24-Nov-2015.
http://indiafacts.org/nehru-as-seen-by-a-hindu-nationalist/
URL55 U Blog ‘Somnath’ by Pravin Agrawal.
https://www.speakingtree.in/blog/somnath
URL56 U Article "Nehru Termed Bose ‘Your War Criminal’" in The Pioneer of 24-Jan-2016.
http://www.dailypioneer.com/todays-newspaper/nehru-termed-bose-your-war-criminal.html
URL57 U "No crash at Taipei that killed Netaji: Taiwan govt", Outlook, 3-Feb-2005.
https://www.outlookindia.com/newswire/story/no-crash-at-taipei-that-killed-netaji-taiwan-govt/277465
URL58 U Article "Remembering Netaji: How Nehru denied India her true freedom hero" by DIPIN DAMODHARAN in DailyO
dated 22-Jan-2016.
https://www.dailyo.in/politics/netaji-subhas-chandra-bose-birth-anniversary-death-nehru-congress/story/1/8596.html
URL59 U Article ‘A Case For Bhim Rajya’ by S Anand in the Outlook magazine of 20 August 2012.
https://www.outlookindia.com/magazine/story/a-case-for-bhim-rajya/281924
URL62 U Article ‘Nehru’s Arrogant Ambition’.
https://deeshaa.org/2008/04/06/nehrus-arrogant-ambition/
URL64 U SA Aiyar in Swaminomics—Lessons for India from Singapore. ToI Blog, 29-Mar-2015
https://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Swaminomics/lessons-for-india-from-singapore/
URL67 U Jaya Jaitley—“#NehruSnooped: Truth behind Netaji files”, 25-May-2015.
https://www.dailyo.in/politics/netaji-nehru-renkoji-temple-saigon-kk-chettur-national-archives-netaji-gold-sa-
iyer/story/1/3954.html
VK1 B Autobiography of Dr Verghese Kurien of Amul Dairy fame, as told to Gouri Salvi—I Too Had a Dream. Roli Books,
New Delhi. 2005.
VM B Ved Marwah—India in Turmoil. Rupa, New Delhi, 2009.
Wolp2 B Stanley Wolpert—Nehru: A Tryst with Destiny. Oxford University Press. London. 1996.
https://books.google.co.in/books?id=Cg9uAAAAMAAJ
YGB B,D YG Bhave—The First Prime Minister of India. Northern Books Centre. New Delhi. 1995.
https://books.google.co.in/books?id=Ye3VUMLhaz8C
Zak B Fareed Zakaria—The Post-American World. Viking. Penguin India. New Delhi. 2008.